I retroactively oppose the recent renaming of this category from Category:Sleeping cars (rail transport); "sleeping car" is a well-established term all over the world while "sleeping train" just sounds strange. Also a sleeping car on its own isn't a "train", "sleeping trains" sounds like it refers to an entire night train, making the category redundant. ACo2c (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) it doesn't sound strange at all, sleeping car sounds strange 2) sleeping cars is false and we should use the accurate term, those are not cars 3) good point to raise the night train category, it should probably set on this category – however that cat is only for passenger train in service during night while the cat here is about rail transport with dedicated support for sleep (i.e. having beds). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amtrack uses "sleeping car" (and confusingly also "sleeper car", on the same page!). ÖBB uses "sleeping car". CIWL used to call itself "the International Sleeping-Car Company" in English. The European Rail Timetable (a British publication) uses "sleeping car". I do not know why you consider their usage of the term to be "false". The English Wikipedia article is at en:w:Sleeping car. English Wikipedia also has en:w:Passenger railroad car, en:w:Dining car and en:w:Couchette car, all referring to various kinds of rail vehicles. I see no proof that the word "car" can only refer to road vehicles.
And even if there would be consensus that "car" is absolutely, truly unacceptable to use in a railway context I still don't think the current name is optimal. Category:Night trains and most other "train" categories are about types of train services, while this category is (or at least used to be) about a type of rail vehicle. A picture of a single sleeping car – or whatever you like to call it – standing by itself in a rail yard could be categorised into Category:Sleeping cars (rail transport), but it can't reasonably be categorised in Category:Sleeping trains, because a single unpowered rail vehicle on its own can't really be described as a train. Can the category at least have a name that makes it clear if it is about a train service category or a type of vehicle? ACo2c (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per CarA car, or an automobile, is a motor vehicle with wheels. so it is wrong or at least misleading and suboptimal. I know that some use that term but many also use the term sleeping trains so that's not a good argument for using the false term. The Wikipedia article should also be moved but that needs to be discussed there. Because the night trains cat is about something different, this separate cat is due. It can't reasonably be categorised in Category:Sleeping trains because a train that includes one cabin with beds is a sleeping train. You think all pictures in trains categories show full trains? This category is about the type of vehicle and by extension related activities, services, impacts, issues, and so on just like it is the case for Cat categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the English Wikipedia says that "car" can refer to "a motor vehicle with wheels". It also says that it can refer to quite a number of other things. In natural languages the same word can be used to mean several different things; there is no helping that. The House of Commons is not a "single-unit residential building", but that does not make its name "fake". And why do you trust the English Wikipedia article Car so much when you dismiss the same project's article Sleeping car as "false", "wrong" and "misleading"? ACo2c (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per Train, [a] train is a series of connected vehicles that run along a railway track. This image is in Category:Sleeping trains, but clearly does not show "a series of connected vehicles". Therefore, by your own logic, the term "Sleeping train" must be "fake", "false", "wrong", "misleading" and so on, right? ACo2c (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the ENWP page of house is slightly flawed since house refers not just to residential buildings and I think because the term House there is meant metaphorically as to 'house' the members of parliament similar to how Hogwarts Houses (also UK origin) does not refer to actual houses.
Because sleeping car is a common name that is false and used next to other common terms that are accurate while Car is used accurately and is defined there in several sentences and using many refs rather than just being the article title.
I don't trust it though, I cited it for clarification and other sources can be added if useful. In general it would be good if Wikimedia projects are more or less consistent so if there was actually a flaw with ENWP's definition of Car it would first need to be corrected there rather than ignored on other pages.
Train components are within the scope of a category about trains. The same thing can be observed for many other categories like the one for cars...if useful or deemed necessary one could create a subcategory for components and/or individual coaches.
Revert the recent unilateral renaming per ACo2C. "Sleeper cars" is a very common term for railway coaches with sleeping provisions in India, although "sleeper coaches", "sleeper compartments" and "sleepers" are also used here. I had previously tabled a CFD to rename Category:Automobiles to Category:Cars, but it was unanimously opposed before I withdrew the proposal. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That it is a common term doesn't mean we need to use the inaccurate/false term rather than another very common term. See my further points in the reply to ACo2c. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "car" doesn't always mean a motorized road vehicle, for which we use "automobile". As I have said before, I had once proposed to rename the Commons category for consistency with the Wikipedia usage. However, most prominent users (notably JopkeB and Joshbaumgartner) had opposed it before my withdrawal of the proposal. The terms "sleeping cars" and "sleeper cars" are not inaccurate or false, as long as the term "car" refers to a covered land vehicle. However, since we try to avoid using the term "cars" extensively, we can call the sleeping cars as "sleeping rail vehicles" but not "sleeping trains". As pointed out by ACo2c, a train is a series of rail vehicles. In India, we have express trains with a mix of sleeping (reserved) and sitting (unreserved) rail coaches. So calling them "sleeping trains" is rather problematic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, the Hindi word "gāṛī" (गाड़ी) is equivalent to the word "car", which also exists in many other Indian languages. However, we often say "railcars" (रेलगाड़ी) while talking about trains, and countrymen say "bullcars" (बैलगाड़ी) while riding on bullock-carts. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with "sleeping rail vehicles" even though I'd prefer the current one since I think it's more common (e.g. more widely understood). As noted earlier, "express trains with a mix of sleeping (reserved) and sitting (unreserved) rail coaches" is a sleeping train. If there is one rail coach with beds, then it would be within the scope of this category as are characteristic components of sleeping trains such as one sleeping coach as well as related subjects such as the economics of them.
In Europe, most trains operating at night are not sleeping trains, that means you have to sleep very uncomfortably while sitting if you do so. Even if car doesn't always mean that, it's generally understood this way and even ENWP defines it this way. I should have included this in the quote Most definitions of cars state that they run primarily on roads, seat one to eight people, have four wheels. A main point of it is that it's a different category of transport vehicles than rail transport vehicles. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Commons has a number of other categories for rail vehicles that are named something with "car" or "cars". Hundreds and hundreds of them, in fact – I just gave up an attempt to estimate their number more precisely. If it is decided here that we can't use the word "car" for rail vehicles, all of these presumably have to be renamed. Is there some easy way to identify them all and tag them with the "This category is being discussed..." template? ACo2c (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Commons:AutoWikiBrowser. However, they don't have to be renamed, I think they should though. Maybe one can use petscan to find all categories within the Rail transport category branch containing car in the title. It would be great if that was done but it could also be done separately at a much later point for example. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the English dialects I'm familiar with, "sleeping cars", "sleeper cars" or just "sleepers" (in context) are common; I don't recall ever before hearing the phrase "sleeping trains" (which to me conjures up an image of a children's cartoon of an anthropomorphic locomotive taking a nap). Google verbatim search shows "About 1,670,000 results" for "sleeping cars"; "About 37,400 results" for "sleeping trains". "Sleeping trains" does not seem to be the common construction, and agree it should not be what we call them on Commons. Agree that what seems an undiscussed unilateral move should be reverted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more about which concept is more appropriate as the subject of the category than about the usage. It's a fair point and I don't know why term is more common.
Nevertheless the term car seems misleading to false even if it is common.
Alternative terms also are "Sleeper trains", "Overnight trains" and "Night trains" but the latter is also inappropriate since conventional trains without beds can also operate at night. The term is widely used and the number of google results is not a good indicator or rationale, this would be better but also isn't good and I can't access the data there (maybe somebody could take a screenshot and put it somewhere).
Agree that a search such as done above is not by it self a rationale, it is simply an observation of common usage in English. If there is already a common phrase naming something, I see no need to try to coin some Wikimedia specific neologism for it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted a category with both a different name and a different scope, you could have created a new category instead of hijacking an existing, well-established one without discussion. ACo2c (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but the issue still is that the term is essentially false – another approach would be to move it to "Sleeping wagons" and create another cat above it which can easily still be done. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero "false" "wrong" or "misleading" in the term "en:w:Sleeping car". I've been trying to resist speculating thus far, but given continued arguments I'll ask: @Prototyperspective: do you have some objection to all uses of the term "car" to refer to anything other than an automobile? When did you first learn that the term continues to be common in English to refer to other things (and indeed has been since decades before automobiles became common)? Do you think such terms must be stamped out? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's 1) because the term is usually contrasted to rail transport and various sources define it in ways that are incompatible with it referring to rail transport wagons. I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source but I'll cite it anyway because you can use it to find other sources, it's not that unreliable if it's a large article, other sources state the same, and things should be consistent
A car, or an automobile, is a motor vehicle with wheels. Most definitions of cars state that they run primarily on roads, seat one to eight people, have four wheels, and mainly transport people over cargo.
2) Rail transport wagons do no have a motor
3) They do not run primarily run on roads but on rails
As far as I can tell, no one is denying that the most common usage of the word "car" in English is for automobiles. As far as I can tell, no one but *you* @Prototyperspective: is trying to argue that the word can't ever mean anything else, and other uses of the word "car" are somehow "false" "wrong" or "misleading". Thank you for clarifying the situation that fighting against any other usage of the word is exactly what you are doing here. Your requested "refutation": 1) The very article you quote, en:w:Car links at the very top to en:w:Car (disambiguation), thus at the very start acknowledging that other meanings exist. 2,3,4 are either usually or completely true, but are irrelevant to the discussion, since none of those facts make them somehow not cars. Again I point out en:w:Sleeping car; there is also en:w:Tank car, en:w:Boxcar, en:w:Passenger railroad car, etc. Such usages can be found in dictionaries, literature, and common vernacular. For some reason you apparently don't like that. You are certainly entitled to your personal preferences, however it is not the job of Wikimedia Commons to be an arbitrator of usage of the English language, much less do you have personal authority to declare common English language words null and void. Pardon if I seem blunt; I'm aware of good work you've done here. However it seems to me that you are making a personal mission to fight against one particular example of common and long established word usage, to the detriment of useful discussion of category names. Thanks for your attention. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making a personal mission, I just moved it, which may have been the wrong discussion since I should rather nominated the category for discussion, and calmly argued against points made here.
I maintain that the term is inappropriate (whether or not it's false is somewhat irrelevant), I wasn't saying it can't mean anything else since people obviously this word also to refer to wagons and I'd suggest that the term with car is redirecting to the wagons or trains category (as currently the case) and that all notable synonyms, especially "sleeping car" (self-driving cars in which you can sleep or who have a driver?) are listed in the category description so the page is well findable and well understood. Also I'd be fine with somebody moving the category title back as it was until this discussion is closed. Then if the scope is to be the wagon, not the train I'd support "sleeper wagon" (alternatively sleeper coach). Apparently the international build term for it is "wagon-lit". Prototyperspective (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StrongSupport revert as proposed, per above discussion; I see I'd not specifically voted previously. The move seems to be Prototyperspective unilaterally creating a neologism due to personal distaste to common and longstanding English language use of the word "car" with meanings other than "automobile". Wikimedia Commons category names should when practical align with common linguistic usage rather than to invent new terms when existing ones will serve. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
creating a neologism "sleeper train" is the terminology widely used which is not a neologism. English language use of the word "car" with meanings other than "automobile" which other uses of that term are there that don't refer to a road-based automobile except for railroad car & sleeper car? It also contradicts Alternatives to car use and Car which are based on the common contrasting/distinction of cars with other means of transport like trains & trams. Due to the low use of the word of the new category title I see how that should probably be undone but at the same time I think clearly something should be done such as editing the English Wikipedia article to say that it can refer to any land transport vehicle (which I'd oppose). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Arms and armour". It should use British English, not American English. Americans bypassed the age of armour. O think it is an exception. See the Wiki category of "Category:Individual arms and armour". Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support keep and rename to UK spelling per User: Laurel Lodged. The terms "arms" and "armor" refer to various different things depending on context. The phrase "arms and armour" refers to a specific set of things. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that all categories are named in the format "Former XXX members"; but as time goes by, all groups will eventually come to an end. That is to say, we created a category for former members is not necessary, unless there is proof that they never come to an end.
@ウィ貴公子 Even if there is precedent, that doesn't put something in stone, and certainly doesn't automatically apply it to the case at hand. The fact that a practice is being done in more than one case, even if it is widespread, is not a reason to keep doing a bad practice. Josh (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Categorization based on the current status of something is always problematic as things can always change, so these have to be well-maintained. While this can be done by a dedicated user or group, it is reliant on that user or group remaining committed to that maintenance in perpetuity, which is something that the project cannot count on. I do get that certain topics have both a good case for some status categorization and a large enough user base actively maintaining them that it can work, but in this case, are there really enough members of these groups that they need to be diffused by status? Can this not be better presented with a gallery page? I'm not trying to question the veracity of idol group fans, or even claim that these categories are not being correctly maintained at the moment, but it isn't a good basis for reliable indefinite categorization. Josh (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another unnecessary category, this time in Kerala. Like the previous category, its two files are not related to the Kerala Soil Museum, although both files are related to soils and Kerala. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't know anymore. What would be the purpose of Category:Surnames and what would be the difference with the flat list? It has now about 2.000 more subcategories than the flat list. JopkeB (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly specific and inaccurate. Not all are islands (e.g. Belize). Not all are states (e.g. Insular areas of the United States). If retained, then correct the capitalisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Sbb1413 who seems to have made many additions to this category that did not conform to the UN list. I am now removing those. I think with the UN list this is a clear keep, but it cannot turn into a catchall. - Jmabel ! talk17:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what the status of "Associate Members of United Nations Regional Commissions" is. Are they SIDS? How can they be since they are not states? Is a subsidiary category needed for them? Since there is an emerging consensus that it should be retained, might a split be in order (states vs associates)? Should it be renamed to something like "List of UN Small Island Developing States"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please change the spelling of the category to "Category:SVG coat of arms elements - American Bald Eagles" with capital letters for "American Bald Eagles" especially for the word "American" because it is a country. Thanks in advance and Happy 4th of July! 109.76.230.18019:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear what this category is supposed to be. These files are already tagged with categories that have a clearer scope. –Fredddie™22:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mxn added some subcategories [2][3] that currently have diagrams, but aren't specifically about diagrams. The problem with this approach is that it assumes no new files are added. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a convention around here that the “series” categories are for diagrams only. Most of them are already subcategories of “Diagrams of” categories. In an ideal world, those would not be limited to diagrams but would have subcategories of their own for diagrams. But that would be a huge change that goes over my head.
Currently this category holds 14 photos of buildings hosting those ministeries. Maybe a better name can be found. If it's for buildings, that should be in the category name. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wiktionary, the word “venue” has a nuance of the building or structure like a theater, auditorium, arena; On the other hand, the word “space” means, more abstract, an extent across two or three dimensions for to do something. As a result, this category may include the temporary spaces other than the permanent venues, for example, (1) an aisle in a record store temporarily widened to host an in-store concert for sales promotion, (2) Rental studio or practice space that are not normally operated as a venue but are used temporarily for an event. Note that the expression "event space" appears to be used in several countries, including English-speaking countries. If you have never used this expression, please ignore it. Instead, others use this category for reasonable reasons. (I apologize for not having time to discuss this in detail because I am busy this weekend due to a sudden illness in my family) --Clusternote (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that could mean "event spaces" is broader than "event venues" but then why the parenthetical "(venues)".
In any case, I think it is a useless distinction. As I've so often remarked in CfD's lately: categorization is about navigation, not ontology. It is OK if categories are not ontologically perfect, as long as it is clear to someone navigating the "category tree" which way to go. - Jmabel ! talk23:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your point is reasonable; the parenthesis (venues) of this category is a kind of my darty hack; In general, the "spaces" may be the generic notion of the "venues", thus event spaces is better to set as the parent category. However it is slightly hard task to create well-designed abstract categories immediately... On such case, rather than immediately creating the expected category, I tend to create a subset of it (i.e.Event spaces (venues)), as shown in the diagram on the right. What to do next is create the expected generic category event spaces, then the contents of issued sub-cat Event spaces (venues) could be moved to it. --Clusternote (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that this addition makes the category structure more complicated than necessary. As long as there is no clear description showing the difference with Category:Event venues ("Event spaces are ....") and showing the dire necessity of it, I propose to merge Category:Event spaces (venues) into Category:Event venues. JopkeB (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to do is: on the more large effort to systematically categorize the media about the entertainment events based on the 5W1H (i.e. Who, What, When, Where, Why, How), try to resolve the potential discrepancies between "Where" attribute and the facility/building categorization, beforehand. On the previous my example, the live houses (a type of music venues, sometimes called "night clubs"), theaters, stadiums could be naturally categorize to the "Event venues" (as the subcategory of facility category, Entertainment venues); however, the temporary utilization of the corner of the record shops, rental studios, exhibition halls, are not the dedicated event venues as the facilities/buildings; Instead, it should categorize more generalized category, such like a "Event spaces", in my idea. I think the above idea might naturally emerge in the process of categorizing the media about the entertainment events for thousands of times. --Clusternote (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched the contents of that page and there is no mention of Buildings, and the only mentions of Facilities are twice in the proposed description of a other subcategory, Leisure venues. In the discussion you brought up that has now been closed, I can't see any evidence of any explicit discussion of anything other than buildings and facilities. In my eyes, above your claim seems not related to discussion on this page. --Clusternote (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
isnt any space usable for events? buildings, outside of buildings, public parks, closed parks, roads, streets, somewhere in the mountains, lakes... what is not event space? RZuo (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: Presumably we'd only use this category for spaces (or types of spaces) associated with a fair number of events, but it does call into question whether this category is really useful at all. Category:Event venues does seem to cluster together a range of types of spaces that do seem to belong clustered together; this category not so much. - Jmabel ! talk01:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: , oh sorry for my explanation. My final goal is (1) to rename the current Event spaces (venues) to Event spaces, and (2) make it (one of the) parent categories of Event venues. However in my observation, the parent hierarchy of Event venues' includes the notion of buildings and facilities, and it is not so simple, therefore currently I'm pending it and try to consider the best solution. best, --Clusternote (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more polite. I do not like your nasty remarks.
I am seriously trying to solve a problem here, namely make Category:Event spaces (venues) redundant. That might be done by changing a current parent with another one: Structures instead of Buildings. You asked for examples about structures not being buildings, I gave you several and I gave you one within the current venues category structure. JopkeB (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's already redundant. I disagree with Clusternote's stated concern, but would not really care if we accede to it. - Jmabel ! talk04:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my eyes, this type of discussion seems slightly pointless; the needs of new categories are normally rationalized by the existence of files not fit in current category structure; however this discussion ignore it. What drive to ignore it ? --Clusternote (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clusternote You are correct, it is the files which should be the ultimate driver for categorization, not creating structure for its own sake. I was assuming while reading this that sufficient actual files existed to support the categories being discussed, is this not true? Josh (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question is: What is the difference between Category:Event spaces (venues) and Category:Event venues? Can both categories have clear descriptions showing their differences OR can both categories be merged?
Answers:
Up to now no clear descriptions were given to show their differences.
There are oposite opnions about the usefulness of the destinction:
Jmabel !, JopkeB and RZuo think both categories can be merged. Categorization is about navigation, not ontology. A category structure should not be more complicated than is necessary.
I am already disgusted by the manner in which you have been disrupting the discussion by ignoring the answers, asking the same questions over and over again, falsely claiming that the discussion has already been discussed in another Commons discussion that is not directly relevant, and ignoring the falsehoods when they are pointed out, which is contrary to the general manner of discussion in general society.
Please respond to the answers in the thread in which they are given.
If your claim (i.e. already discussed elsewhere) is pointed out as blatant false, admit it or add explanation to it.
The raison d'etre of this category is
In several countries, the concept of "Event spaces" is frequently used instead of "Event venues".
The reason for Spaces rather than Venues is that the "event spaces" themselves claim to be different from the dedicated permanent venues for general entertainment.
The existence of a category (beginning with) "Event spaces" is useful both for navigation purposes and for assigning categories to files.
No matter how confusing and protracted this kind of discussion is, and no matter how hard you try to get the community to accept your proposal; You should recognize that the concept of Event spaces is widespread in the real world, and that it is more convenient for more people to have a category started with "Event spaces" than to be forced to merge into a another named category "Event venues". Wikimedia Commons should not be a place where you deprive many people of convenience for the sake of your personal will.
--Clusternote (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you claimed that "Event places that is not fit with Category:buildings by function, can not categorized well."
so please move everything that's a building out of your category, so that others can see what you use this category for. RZuo (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Choice 1: merge. Choice 2: clear description of the distinction in hat notes.
I think it is important to keep in mind: the purpose here is not ontology, it is to help people find things. The reason I prefer merging is that subtle distinctions are not going to be clear to most people who are just trying to find an image of something. - Jmabel ! talk19:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah pardon, I am sorting old maps, currently from atlases of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. France is reliably covered in thoses atlases, and I do try get at least a few maps right despite the constantly changing administrative areas. And when in doubt, at least all of southern France is "Occitany/i/e/a". So of course I checked if there is any definition in either of the "Old maps of" categories, then checked above for a definition in either of the "maps of" categories, and they were always either blank or "use the appropriate category" (without mention how to find out what 'appropriate' means).
So thanks to your comment, I checked the parents of the parents of the parent categories, and the destinction is hidden in "Occitania" and "Occitanie", yet never repeated in the map-categories where that definition would also be needed. I would like to ask you to insert definition and/or guidance on how maps are to be categorized at least at the key levels. A prominent example map could also be helpful, instead of street signs. Then I'd consider this CfD done, and structural changes are not needed at all.
By the way, I am also missing helpful guidances in basically all historical regions of France. For example I'm not even sure if maps of either of the two Burgundies really belong into "Old maps of Bourgogne". Many historical regions don't even have pre-existing map-categories yet, so I needed to create for example "Old maps of Quercy", "Old maps of Bordelais", "Maps of Artois" or "17th-century maps of Xaintonge" all on my own. --Enyavar (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Old maps of <placename>" aren't really any different of any "ABC of <placename>"-categories. If you wish a description, you could add an infobox.
Agreed, just because some 'maps of <place>' are valid categories, doesn't mean we have to create them for every conceivable place. The place itself should be a recognized topic on Commons (i.e. have its own place category). There should be enough maps in that category to warrant a sub to diffuse them to, and there should be enough non-map content in that category to warrant diffusing them from. Josh (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not understood this as a deletion discussion before, so of course keep both. But if no action is undertaken, miscategorizations will inevitably occur again, as the category name itself does not make clear the difference. Best, --Enyavar (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In this case I find it useful that the topic names are at the front of the category name ("Clothing advertising", "Telecommunication advertising", etc.): so you can scan the subcategories rather easily and quickly.
@1. The subcategories with "advertisements" in the category name should be removed to (a subcategory of) Category:Advertisements (if it is about an advertisement medium) or Category:Advertisments by product should be created for them (if it is about a product).
@2. Do you have an example of such a super long name?
No, I am not opposing "a consistent naming format", I just find it useful that the topic names are at the front of the category name, in this case. JopkeB (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so we will go with "xx advertising" then, if no one objects in a few months.
handing out free samples -- advertising but not advertisement
personally i prefer putting things under "advertising" and would not create the subcat "advertisements" unless there are enough files to warrant both categories. RZuo (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then we should move the pictures about advertisments to the correct categories. And what do you mean by there "doesnt seem to be much joining up"? How would you like to have it? JopkeB (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Manchester did not exist until 1974. Before that these categories should be in History of Lancashire or History of Cheshire. Rathfelder (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things are generally categorized by where they are now rather than where they were when they functioned. An image of Oldham taken in 1935 would still be appropriate for the Greater Manchester rather than Lancashire category due to currently being in Greater Manchester. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category is certainly not one of the important categories, but the number of files it contains cannot be an argument. There are several similar categories and it fits into this scheme. Every category starts small. --XRay💬17:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a constructive suggestion at this point as an alternative to destructive deletion: How would it be if the categories that contain only a few files were filled first? That might be just as much work as submitting a deletion request. After all, quite a few people have to deal with a deletion request. --XRay💬17:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: My main argument is that the category is overly specific and makes it harder, not easier, to find images on Commons, as they are hidden behind endless date subcategories. It would be better to have a category for the decade or even century, not the year. Nosferattus (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally subdivision by settlement and county are better than district. Many readers probably won't know what district a place is in but will know the settlement or county so at least we could still have a category for the town on architecture even if we have one for the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This museum has been called many things, but the official name appears to be Musée lapidaire Saint-Pierre (see the French Ministry of Culture). Are there objections to moving the category to "Musée lapidaire Saint-Pierre (Vienne)" and changing the current name to a redirect? Choliamb (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some more checking in recent publications, I'm happy to keep it. The Nouvel Espérandieu volume for Vienne calls it the Musée archéologique Saint-Pierre, so that's good enough for me. This can be closed. Choliamb (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: Generally, taxi services (taxi transport) should be distinguished from taxi vehicles, similarly as buses are subcategory of bus transport and trams are a subcategory of tram transport. Taxi services is a broader item and have more aspects than only vehicles: there exist also files related to taxi stands, taxi tickets, taxi drivers, taxi regulations and documents, taxi-related road signs, taxi apps etc.
Taxi automobiles are undoubtedly the prototypical kind of taxi vehicles, which is usually understood under the term "taxi". It is true that other types of taxi service derive their names from that basic type. For "taxi automobiles", "taxis" can be suitable default name. Other types of road taxis (motorcycle taxis, taxi vans, bike taxis as rickshaws etc.) and non-road taxis (taxi boats, taxi aircraft) should remain special subcategories of "taxi vehicles by type".
If the aim is to simplify categorization and avoid duplication, it is not desiderable to add a new category tree Vehicles for hire. Above all, the expression "vehicles for hire" indicates rather Vehicle rental (rental vehicles), while "taxi" is a specific service, where you rent a vehicle with a driver and you buy the driver's service: not only the act of driving itself, but also finding a suitable way to your destination. If some non-automobile services call themselves "taxi", they want to emphasize the specific similarity of their service with a classic car taxi. We have no better term for that. The expression "vehicles for hire" is not so specific, not distinguishing from rental vehicles. It is also specific to a taxi that you usually hire it for one ride, not for a longer period. Shared taxi can also be counted as a form of taxi, although there is no "hire" to speak of here: it is a form of shared public transport. However, the microbuses can be identical as for the classic taxi. Some municipalities also operate so-called "senior taxi" – special social service for senior citizens. They are rather "ordered" than "hired". --ŠJů (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its subcats don't follow any consistent naming convention. I propose to rename all of them into "politicians of [country] by office". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category is for media related to athletes attaining a milestone in their sport. For example, this photo depicts Major League Baseball pitcher John Smoltz striking out 3000 batters over his career. The category name is about as simple and straightforward as possible. Mindmatrix23:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now; this category clearly has potential. The biggest impediment to adding files to this category is that the word 'milestone' is not used on such files, but rather the specific milestone is mentioned (usually), so files tend to be difficult to find. Mindmatrix13:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems inherently rather vague. I don't think it useful; better to have categories for significant events in particular sports (eg Olympic world records; significant moments in Major League Baseball, etc etc). Also Milestones are an actual thing which this category is not about, as the term is here used metaphorically. (Actual "milestones in sports" media would presumably be something like images of runners or cyclists passing a milestone.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the word itself should become dab, since it also commonly refers to "official agreement intended to resolve a dispute or conflict". RZuo (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although there has been a CFD regarding this category, the question remains is whether this intersectional category is redundant to Category:Activism, as activism covers both (political) demonstrations and protests. I had also created separate Category:Political demonstrations and Category:Protests categories as byproducts of the previous CFD. Since the category tree is widely used, the discussion should not be closed by any uninvolved editor or admin without consent of at least one of its participants. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't discuss on whether demonstrations should be a sub of protests or vice versa. It has been decided by discussions that the two topics are overlapping but distinct. The main reason for nominating this category is the presence of categories like Category:Activism against air travel infrastructure construction. Such categories demonstrate that "demonstrations and protests" can be replaced by shorter "activism" without the problems of intersectional categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found the following CfDs in a quick search, plus some category talk page discussion:
Maybe I misunderstood you but activism isn't just demonstrations and protests but also lots of other activities etc. Thus the category is valid as is as a subcategory of Activism and should be kept as is. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you so clearly distinguish between protests and demonstrations and would that be a constructive use of time rather than making things more dispersed and harder to find? I think they are very similar and very much overlapping, often hard to disentangle. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective I agree that differentiation seems inevitably based on perspective, which makes it problematic. If one sees the action from the perspective of the cause/policy it supports, it is a demonstration, but if one sees it in light of the cause/policy it is opposite, it is a protest. There are a large number of connotations attached to both of these terms. I don't think that alone means we can't have these as sub-categories to illustrate the concepts, but I do think a good NPOV basis will have to be developed to maintain them with any kind of utility. Josh (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the real scope of this category? I think we need to answer this to correctly decide on how to 'fix' it.
Is this category just an umbrella for demonstrations and/or protests? (i.e. anything that could be categorized under Category:Demonstrations, Category:Protests, or both) If so, then ideally, all it would have under it are those two categories, and all files would be diffused into one, the other, or both of these sub-categories. If this is true, I see no reason why we need this level, and Category:Demonstrations and Category:Protests can live directly under Category:Activism. If we do see a need to keep it, it should be renamed to something to reflect its parentage such as Category:Activist public events, Public events in activism, or some such.
Is this category specifically for events which are both demonstrations and protests simultaneously? This would be a far more restrictive scope, but would at least reflect the current name. If this is the case, we would not be able to have Demonstrations or Protests under it, since they presumably are not identical and thus include contents that are not under the other. I'm not sure what the value of this category would be in that case, or if a better name would still be warranted, such as "protest demonstrations" or some such.
Is this category broader than just demonstrations and protests? (i.e. any kind of activist expression even if it would not strictly be categorized under either Demonstrations or Protests) If so, then the name is certainly not sufficient, and something along the lines of "expressions of activism" would apply. If broad enough, it may indeed be merely redundant to Category:Activism and worthy of a merge with that category.
Are there Protests that are not Demonstrations? (i.e. are these really parallel or vertical categories) The above three are based on the presumption that these two are really distinct categories with some overlap, but each with some contents which are not valid contents of the other. Is this really the case? Apologies to @Sbb1413, as he expressed not really wanting this CfD to go here, but I think we need to at least define this before we can really decide on the bigger matter.
The first 3 are not really independent questions, but more a multiple choice: The TLDR may be "Is this category just a combo of D's and P's, is it more narrow than that, or is it broader than that?" Josh (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I'm a month late to respond, but here is my response:
I think it is supposed to be an umbrella term for demonstrations and/or protests, probably due to the significant overlaps in the definition of the two terms. The definitions are given below. I want this category to upmerge to Category:Activism, with Category:Political demonstrations and Category:Protests as subcats.
As said before, there are significant overlaps between demonstrations and protests, but this category also covers demonstrations that are not protests, and vice versa.
The scope of this category is not broader than demonstrations and/or protests.
Yes, there are protests that are not demonstrations. Protests can be done by a single person, which are not demonstrations. Similarly, there are demonstrations in support of a particular group, which are not necessarily protests.
a strong complaint expressing disagreement, disapproval, or opposition
an occasion when people show that they disagree with something by standing somewhere, shouting, carrying signs, etc.
Dictionary.com:
demonstration: a public exhibition of the attitude of a group of persons toward a controversial issue, or other matter, made by picketing, parading, etc.
protest: an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid
Merriam-Webster:
demonstration: a public display of group feelings toward a person or cause
protest: the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval, especially: a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval
All of these indicate that protests might be a sub of demonstrations. But as I have said before, protests done by a single person are not really demonstrations, which involve a group of people. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I agree that in reality the first 3 I posed were essentially multiple choice, and the gist of your answers seem to be that you feel protests and demonstrations are distinct concepts with a lot of (thought not complete) overlap.
In this case, both Demonstrations and Protests are separate concepts and both should be categorized independently in their relevant categories. Category:Demonstrations and protests should be divvied up between them, and any contents that represent both a demonstration and a protest should be categorized under each of them (i.e. Protest marches), obviously diffused to appropriate sub-categories of each. If there are mutual parents of both Demonstrations and Protests, and there are contents where it is unclear whether they depict a demonstration and/or a protest, those contents should remain under the said mutual parent category. Ultimately Demonstrations and protests should be eliminated, though perhaps serve as a redirect to Activism or other relevant parent of the two. Josh (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Activist events is not the same as "Demonstrations and protests". I don't think all demonstrations and protests are (properly described as) activist events and there are activist events that are neither demonstrations nor protests. I oppose moving, splitting or renaming this category for now. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the category is best kept as is for now and don't see how you could properly disentangle protests and demonstrations. Also not all activist events are DaPs. Moreover, activist event is not really the right category to put these in I think and Protests should certainly not be put into cat Social events. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don't think all demonstrations and protests are (properly described as) activist events but I'm not sure about that earlier point of mine, maybe they inherently are. In any case, as said there are lots of Activist events that aren't demonstrations & protests, such as activist conferences and other things. Thanks for creating the category, its contents should put your point to rest (and despite still lacking many files & subcats). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. For now, demonstrations and protests are activist events, and I'm not sure whether there are demonstrations and protests that are not activist events. But as far as I know, people don't have to be Activists to participate in those events, and common people can organize or participate in demonstrations that align with their beliefs. Categories are there for navigation, not Ontology, and I still believe Category:Demonstrations and protests can be meaningfuly split into two overlapping but valid topics. I've actually thought of things like activist conferences as distinct activist events, but sometimes they can be parts of a demonstration or protest. Anyway, now we can analyse which of the events listed in Category:Demonstrations and protests by type (and its subcats) are demonstrations, which ones are protests, and which ones belong to both. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 01:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most would belong into both and it would usually be very difficult to distinguish which one it is. People will categorize their cats into the wrong category or only into one when it belongs into both. Moreover, it will be more difficult to find things one is looking for. These are more like synonyms than different concepts. Protest even starts with A protest (also called a demonstration, remonstration, or remonstrance) is a public act of objection, disapproval or dissent against political advantage. I don't think there is any need or use of (or support for) the change you seek to implement here. It's a valid constructive question but for now the best thing to do is to just leave it as is, maybe subcategorizing things a bit. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoyZuo: For trains and automobiles, there aren't expressions like "in automobile or "on train". You'd say, "I'm in an automobile," not "I'm in automobile." You'd say, "I'm on a train," not "I'm on train." It's common to say someone is "in bed," without a preposition or article like a/an/on/in. You can say "in a bed" or "in the bed," but you can also say "in bed." -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category as long as all those pics remain hosted in Commons. By the way, this category should be renamed to "nude female humans with hands in hair". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways I can't speak for @Sbb1413, but if the issue is that the content is out of scope, the correct process is a deletion request for the files you believe should no longer be retained. The category is really secondary to that, as if there are legitimately no remaining files in a category, it can be speedy deleted as empty. However, so long as content remains for which the category is a valid categorization for (per Commons category policies), the category must remain. Categories do not create content, it is the content that drives the category's existence. Categories exist to organize hosted files, the ultimate end use that users may apply to said files is irrelevant to the categorization. As for the rename he suggested, that would merely bring this category in line with some recent CfD standards that have been adopted, not necessarily an answer to the original issue stated. Josh (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I agree with the rename. I haven't gotten to this one yet, but am slowly working through all of the 'nude or partially nude' categories and getting them sorted into their correct categories. Josh (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep currently has 2 subcategories and 85 files, at least a fair number of which seem solidly in scope. BTW the separation of media into "nude" categories is not solely for voyeurism; I've observed many created by users wishing to have main categories without 'unexpected' nude images. Some such categories don't seem of much use to me, but this one is well populated and seems unobjectionable. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation That is correct. As I understand it, the primary purpose for diffusing into nudity categories is not so much to try and gather nude content so much as to provide an additional knowing click for users before they are confronted with unexpected nudity in a topic. I try and always include the {{Commons nudity}} template with such categories (and build that into my templates) to remind users that only content within our educational scope is permitted and that other content is subject to deletion. Josh (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Yangtze River category on the other side then? Should categories be made and maintained in such a way that only a couple of very cult and intelectual people -like yourself- could understand and use them correctly? 191.125.164.13623:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, there do appear to be some contents which are specific places, not necessarily diffused by country and/or river, but which are indeed riverside places. Treating Populated riverside places as an index would mean a file depicting a populated place on a river would necessarily have to first be diffused by country and river before it could be categorized here.
Question So the first thing I think we need to determine is, do we want Populated riverside places to be an index (as it currently seems to primarily be) and thus to name and structure it accordingly and govern content on that basis, or do we want it to be a topical category where any files depicting populated places on rivers can go and move the 'by country' functions to proper new or existing index categories? Josh (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your thoughts about the renaming, but the category “Populated coastal places” don't have a sense. If we leave this definition of this category, then literally 90% of the world’s populated areas can be placed there. As currently defined, this category has the potential to become a "dumping ground" for everything. It seems to me that we need to stimulate the filling of subcategories, such as categorytype. Creating a category like “Rivers in a city with a population of five thousand people” and throwing 5-6 files of even probably different rivers there seems to me to be a much more correct categorization than proposals to save this category. Miikul (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont get these categories. most human settlements sit next to a body of water. those that dont are the minority.
While the "by country" categories are all using the American (and Oxford) spelling "organizations", the subnational and city-level categories are a mess of American and British spellings. The Universality Principle says, "The categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, and local dialects and terminology should be suppressed in favour of universality if possible." The question here is whether local spellings count as "local dialects and terminology" or not. I had created {{Topic by country-gb}} as a stopgap for categories using non-American spellings, as {{Topic by country}} mostly uses American spellings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another question is how to deal with the categories using "organizations of" and the categories using "organizations based in". Country-level categories are using "of" and city-level categories are using "based in", while the intermediate regions are using either "of" or "based in". I have created {{Topic based in country}}, now we have to wait for @Joshbaumgartner. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Based in" should simply be treated as a prepositional as per the template you created. Just as 'in' is a sub of 'of' structurally, so 'based in' is a sub of 'in'. I'll look into it a little more when I get a chance, but I think you made a good start. Josh (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 You are completely correct that the same spelling for organisations/organizations should be used across all localities, per the Universality Principle. Local spellings are absolutely covered by this, as realistically, spelling is the only way a dialect can be reflected in a category name. The only case where we would favor a particular local dialect (spelling) is where a topic is specific to a given locality, but the topic of organizations is universal, so whatever the parent category name is should be applied down through all uses of that term in categories. In this case, "organisations" should be replaced with "organizations". This is not illustrating a preference for any given spelling, but merely implementing universality. Of course, in any case where the spelling "organisation" is used as part of a proper noun/name, it should be retained as that is a different thing. Josh (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The universality principal seems to suggest all the categories should use the same name even if local usage differs but I think we may need to question this given that w:WP:C2C allows difference in local usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a proposal (by me actually) to change policy to allow for more localization of terminology in geographically distinct categories. However, that was not adopted, and current policy is to apply the Universality Principle across all countries for topics not specific to a particular region. Organization and Organizations are universal concepts so Universality Principle applies those terms across all countries. If the parent categories were Category:Organisation and Category:Organisations then those would be the terms used across the board.
I am supportive of raising this matter again at Commons talk:Categories and soliciting as much participation from VP and other sources as possible. If a consensus can be achieved there to adopt new policy and change Commons category policies to permit localized spelling of universal topics, then that new policy should of course be applied to the nominated categories. However, adopting some version of this in the meantime, guerilla-style, is not the correct way to do things, and we should work within current Commons category policies until such a change is adopted. Josh (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 That isn't a bad plan, we will simply carry on with the status quo until there is a resolution there, then depending on that conclusion, we can discuss any needful cases with that in mind. Josh (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Of" is the current preposition used for Organizations by country, and I see no reason to change that to "based in". I also see nothing wrong with creating "Organizations based in ..." categories as sub-categories of "Organizations of ..." categories if there is a need to diffuse the "of" category based on the relationship between organizations and the given country.
As for cities and other levels that might not have an 'of' level implemented, I don't necessarily think we have to go create a bunch of 'of' categories just to build out the structure. However, as they grow, such 'of' categories can certainly be created to handle contents that 'based in' doesn't cover, such as a McDonalds in a given place. Sure the local store may be owned by a local franchisee, but McDonalds is certainly not based in every town it operates in. Thus if one wanted to populate an "organizations operating in Berlin" to hold a "McDonalds in Berlin" category, I don't see a problem with that. I don't know that is something we have the contents to support doing, but it shouldn't be a problem if we do. Essentially, I don't see a need to overhaul the city level categories as they are, but as they expand, they should fit the same hierarchy as the country categories. Josh (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Existing is N 6.2/9 in Cultural heritage monuments list, and is located in Elar district of Abovyan. The second one (N 6.2/89) is located in the centre of Abovyan and is has no pictures now. I suggest create in future category World War II memorial in Abovyan, 1977 when images uploaded. - Kareyac (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alavense: I think that's not the approach I recommend for regions like Ireland. Actually, there's a consensus in the past that region categories should be created only if there are regional content that spread beyond administrative borders (see the CFDs at Category talk:Americas). Otherwise, such categories should be either deleted or converted into dab pages. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the normal format is "X in Ireland", "X in the Republic of Ireland" and "X in Norther Ireland" though in some cases "X in Ireland" may be enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the photos that were of a different building to Category:217–225 Ashton Old Road, Manchester. For this building, the Historic England listing calls it 'Beswick Co-operative Society Building' but we could rename the category to the building's street address: 87–97 Northmoor Road, Manchester.
This category has been named as such since its inception, and it has been divided into states/territories and districts. So changing the name of this category unilaterally will be controversial. My proposal is to change its name (and its subcats) to "train stations" in compliance with the Universality Principle, which avoids using local dialects for each countries/provinces. Plus many of its subcats are already using "train stations" in some form (e.g. Category:Train station signs in India). One thing to note is that Crouch, Swale is trying to apply WP:C2C in Wikimedia Commons in his defence of using local dialects, which is a speedy renaming criterion for English Wikipedia. Since Commons is not necessarily dependent on English Wikipedia, it is better to avoid invoking English Wikipedia's policies while discussing. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to note is that this discussion will affect only the topic categories using "railway stations". It won't affect the proper nouns using "railway station" (e.g. Category:Howrah railway station). The individual stations will continue to use "railway station" and they will be categorized under "train stations". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was at Category:Train stations in India until 2017. The current title does match the Wikipedia category. Perhaps we need a discussion on if the universality principle applies to ENGVAR. We have for example Category:Car parks (British English) which doesn't have close ties to any variety of England and assuming we don't have to match the Wikipedia article in this case the title is correct and should stay as is but there is Category:Parking lots in the United States in American English for America. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When creating a new category, the following principles apply to determining the correct variant of English to use in the category name in certain cases:
Proper names of organizations, works, etc. should use the spelling of the subject in their category name, regardless of variant.
Regional topics should use a variety of English predominant in the topic's region in their category name.
Industries and academic/scientific fields with internationally-recognized standard naming conventions should reflect these standards in category names.
In all other cases, there is no automatic preference as to which variant of English should be used. Category names should not be changed solely in an attempt to standardize on a particular variety of English. It is acceptable to have sub-categories with names in a different variety of English than their parent category in cases where the parent is a general category while the child category is region-specific (e.g. Category:Gas stations in the United States being under Category:Petrol stations by country).
If the consensus is to accept this old proposal, we have to list British, American, Australian, and Canadian terms in the main topic category for future users. We also have to modify the templates like {{Countries of Asia}} (or Africa, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America) and {{Topic by country}}. I had already created {{Topic by country-gb}} as a stopgap for subnational categories using non-American spellings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case of this category, both "train stations" and "railway stations" are synonymous, so there will be no problems if we're going to accept this proposal. However, since @Joshbaumgartner is a keen supporter of the Universality Principle in its current form, we will wait for his response. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 You are certainly correct about my support of the Universality Principle and other principles as they are currently employed. I did indeed put forward an idea of how we might change the policies to permit more use of local dialect. However, that proposal was not ultimately upheld. It did not receive consensus at the time, and I'm not sure that it is really all that good of an idea. I'm happy to have put it out there for discussion, but in practice, I have seen better results simply applying the Universality Principle as it currently is and I'm not sure I would support adoption of that proposal if it were presented again today. Josh (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I have suggested some modifications of the proposal, like avoiding dialectal terms that are too ambiguous. As we strive for preciseness, if we accept the use of dialectal terms, we should use those terms that are unambiguous. As I have said before, both "train stations" and "railway stations" are unambiguous, while "number plates" (UK term for License plates), "stories" (US term for Storeys) etc. are not so. Of course, "flats" and "lifts" can unambiguously refer to Apartments and Elevators respectively in plural. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The date format should always be DD-MM-YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD, unless the date is significant to the USA, for which we have to use MM-DD-YYYY. This should be another exception to the possible usage of local dialects. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I think if we are going to open those cans, we need to do it at a much broader level than this. I think it was right to have that discussion directly at the Commons category policies level, since it has sweeping implications across the category scheme. It didn't get consensus and I probably agree with why. That is not to say we can't bring it up again with modification to account for concerns, but it will have to be well discussed and vetted and we are going to have to be very precise about what exactly is adopted. I support launching such an effort and will work to make something that both improves the project and can get significant support, but for this category, I think we should decide it within the current Commons category policies, as policy change is not likely to occur quickly. Josh (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the only real conflict is with Category:Smoking (cooking), which is also an activity though. It seems as though one of two approaches is called for here:
Rename Smoking (activity) to a better dab term, since 'activity' doesn't really deconflict the two 'smoking' categories as they are both activities.
There seems to already be a lot of media being just added to smoking, presumably unaware of the dab, so if the dab was intended to help diffuse things, it is not working.
Josh (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I'm not sure what tobacco specifically has to do with it. I presume that if someone was smoking (as in burning something to inhale/consume the smoke) whatever, it would go here. There are subcats for specific things such as smoking cigarettes, pipes, etc. If a person is smoking some ham in a smoker, that is a different activity, however (even if they may enjoy the smell of the smoke from that). Josh (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Yes, I think that is part of the problem, we are struggling to come up with a nice clean term to use to refer the common practice of 'smoking' versus 'smoking (cooking)'. "Activity" isn't meaningful, but no other simple term springs to mind. I've asked Crouch if they have a better term in mind, given they don't like option 1, but option 2 demands we arrive at such a term, since the current one is not useful. Josh (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of !voting yourself. If I nominate a category for discussion, I would use {{Comment}} to show my preference instead of self-!voting. Anyway, let's wait for other users for comments. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't vote in CfDs, despite the wording used in the little templates we use. We build consensus, which is a very different thing. I've presented two options that I think are reasonable, but I do have a preference for a particular one and reasons for that support. I think it is important for all participants to be able to voice their input and I don't differentiate between the users who open, discuss, or close a CfD. Josh (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose option 1, while the activity is more common than the cooking meaning it isn't so much more, yes its primary on Wikipedia but the threshold for primary topics for Commons categories is generally higher. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale Fair enough, but in that case what term should be used to dab it? "Activity" does not add any specificity, as it still encompasses "cooking", essentially, it is no different than not having any dab at all. Josh (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't notice that "smoking" was primary on English Wiki--I don't look to them to direct our process here--but it is interesting none-the-less. I agree that our threshold is different (that is we are more likely to dab here) than there. But again, I'm only concerned with doing what is best for Commons, not emulating English Wikipedia. Josh (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the best DAB is, Category:Tobacco smoking might have been an idea but only deals with tobacco and not other things like cannabis, Category:Cigarette smoking would be another idea but again may not be fully inclusive so maybe it should just stay as is unless we can think of a better qualifier but I'd agree "activity" isn't a particularly good DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most subcategories already use option #1, include some for people. The ones for "nude" people seem to use mostly #2, though I doubt any are cooking.
@Enhancing999 the 'nude' categories were done in an attempt to follow the Universality Principle and match the parent category name, but ultimately highlighted the issue, prompting me to raise this CfD. They can easily be changed to match whatever the consensus here is when it is resolved. Josh (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOption 1 unless some better clearer option is offered. IMO disambiguations should be offered only when something is actually ambiguous. When there is possible alternative meaning of a word, the context often serves to make clear so no additional disambiguation is needed. (For example the subject of Category:Buffalo, New York is clear; we do not need to create Wikimedia parenthetical neologisms like "Category:Buffalo (city), New York (state)".) "Activity" is not a clear disambiguation in any case - smoking food in a cooker is also an activity. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example of Buffalo, New York is not comparable because "New York" is the qualifier for "Buffalo". Together the terms make clear what is meant, even though the qualifier is not in parentheses in that case.
When the term is a single word like "smoking," Commons is more likely to need a qualifier. It often doesn't work here to use the same primary topic concept as Wikipedia. It works on Wikipedia because the basic item is an article, which consists of text that says exactly what the article is about. If you go to the article en:Smoking for information on the food preparation method, you will quickly see that you are in the wrong place when you see that the text is about use of cigarettes, etc.
Here on Commons, the basic item is a file, most often an image, and each file is put into one or more categories. Unlike Wikipedia articles that state what they are about, there is often nothing in an image that identifies the location depicted. (Granted, location is not the main issue with the smoking categories.) Complicating that is the fact that categories can be assigned by 1) people who don't understand the category system and 2) bots that don't even know there's a system and categorize based on individual keywords. With many images, once one is put into an incorrect category, it may stay there a very long time before anyone realizes it, especially if there is nothing in the image saying which meaning is intended. If an image comes with the description "Smoking racks of ribs," it may be put into Category:Smoking and Category:Ribs by a bot or person who doesn't know better. At least the ribs category is a dab where it can be found and corrected; "Smoking" as a category should be the same. Auntof6 (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOption 2. Can we change "activity" by something like blowing, inhaling, drug(s) and/or stimulant(s)? And although I know that it is not according to Universality principle: can we leave out the additive in the subcategory names, unless it is necessary to avoid misunderstanding? (I would add it to Category:Smoking equipment because there might be equipment for smoking food as well, but Category:People smoking is clear enough.) If the consensus is for Option 1: I would like to add Category:Tuxedoes in the hatnote as well, because in many countries the word "Smoking" is used and not "Tuxedoes". --JopkeB (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB I get where you are going here, but it sounds essentially like option 2 for the main topic, but option 1 for the sub-categories. I would just go with option 1 for all levels at that point and save the trouble involved with breaking the Universality Principle. I think though the biggest challenge for option 2 remains finding a good replacement for the 'activity' dab, which is again leading me to thinking maybe just option 1 is the keep it simple solution. Josh (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOption 1 and give the other meanings a hatnote. If you type in "Smoking" in the category bar the other ones'll come up as suggestions, and there's very little room for misunderstanding on what "Smoking (cooking)" might refer to - which can't really be said for "Smoking (activity)". Possibly as a result of this a lot of files are placed in the DAB for smoking, none of which refer to cooking (there are actually very few people featured in the "Smoking (cooking)" category, as smoking is for the most part done by a thing rather than a person) or men's formalwear. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the participants in this discussion is pro option 1. Only two persons are not: Chrouch, Swale opposes option 1 and I have spoken out in favor of option 2. I think it is time to close this discussion. Looking at the arguments, I can now live with option 1. Crouch, Swale: Can you now also live with option 1? --JopkeB (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intentionally arbitrary category (description: "This category will feature random images from Ghana"). Images should be diffused to more appropriate, specific categories. Omphalographer (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cadastral community Achental is in its extension identical to the municpality of Achenkirch, so there is no need for this category, as it would contain exactly the same files. Luftschiffhafen (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category regarding the fact that the cadastral community of Achental is an administrative unit of its own and therefore something different from a municipality. It has a different name, too, and hence is a specific item for Wikidata as well. So, in order to finally get a complete list (or let's say category or whatever) of all cadastral communities existing, I suggest to keep this category and to add a relevant comment including asking to put all files into the categories of the municipality. Eweht (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is correct to have a separate Wikidata item for the cadastral community, but a category on Commons? What images could possibly go in there that would not fit in Category:Achenkirch or any of its subcategories? A cadastral community is an administrative construct, not a settlement or anything that can be pictured. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for practical reasons I would pledge to stop this splitting of categories further and further. To assign an image to a cadastral community (KG), the uploader has to consult the map. I do not think, this will happen too often. Some users are even overwhelmed with the assignment to the correct municipality. Thus creating more and more redundant categories will either create a lot of inconsistencies in categorization or create the need for back office checks that overwhelm the existing human ressources.
Comment category copied from talk page "What are the inclusion criteria of this category? It and its geographical subcategories include things that might be anything from landscapes to portraits or just unsorted and unrelated images. I think the "views" category need cleaning, but first they need a definition."
Does anyone have an answer for that or know how this category is any different then the 50 million other ones out there for photographs that actually have meaningful descriptions? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like the "views of" categories are disorganized and somewhat redundant. As per my experience, there are mainly three types of subcategories of "views of" categories.
views of [topic] by angle (or [topic] by angle) — Rarer than the two subcats below, but it can be used to organize categories like views of [topic] from above (or [topic] from above), views of [topic] from below (or [topic] from below), side views of [topic] etc. Aerial photographs of [topic] would be a subcat of views of [topic] from above in this case.
views of [topic] by viewpoint (or [topic] by viewpoint) — It is commonly used when a subject is viewed from another subject, so there's no need to discuss this category.
-scapes, including Category:Cityscapes, Category:Landscapes, Category:Skyscapes — These categories are currently restricted for exceptional cases when the files cannot be categorized under Category:Panoramas, Category:Skylines, Category:Horizons etc., thanks to the relevant CFDs. However, these categories can be rediscussed here to categorize panoramas under landscapes, horizons under both landscapes and skyscapes, and skylines under cityscapes.
I think both are important. To see what a place looks like, to get a broader picture, "Views of" are important. "Views from" are usually taken from a tower, mountain or other high viewpoint, indeed to see the surroundings of that viewpoint. JopkeB (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Maybe this could be renamed to "viewpoints" or something similar and then we could confine it to "Panoramic viewpoints", "viewpoints by location" or something, Etc. Etc. The whole thing is kind of to much of a mess to sort out at this point though. My guess is that a lot of the sub-categories will be totally pointless once the ones that are just being used synonyms for "photographs" are dealt with. I don't generally have a problem with clearly descriptive categories like "panoramic viewpoints" or similar ones based on the perspective of the image though. It's just a matter of coming up with them and sorting out the files in the current categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a bridge between two cities, you would have categories for both cities. For example, the Category:Howrah Bridge is between Kolkata and Howrah, so it has categories for both cities.
I'd have to look again but there was at least a couple of "viewpoint" categories that were children of ones for "views." So there seems to be some overlap there at least in practice if not in how things are actually supposed to be categorized. Maybe I'm thinking of views by angle though. Although looking through that it doesn't seem much better either. But I think you could change the generic "view" categories to specific ones about the angle of the shot or where it was taken from and that would deal with a lot of the problems. Category:Viewpoints by location being one possible option there.
I'm not sure about Category:Panoramas. Let alone the difference between a "panoramic" and a "panorama." Maybe it's one of those British versus American English things (?) But I assume the proper term would be "panoramic whatevers." At least outside of the main category. Since the plural would be on the last word. I don't know though. Looking through it there seems to be a mix of "panorama", "panoramas", "panoramic", "panoramics." I think you could simply things by just going with "viewpoints" for both this and Category:Panoramas. "wide-angle view or representation of a physical space" is pretty ambiguous and "wide-angle viewpoints" makes way more sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing "views by topic" has is a category that ends in "panoramas." So I don't think it's even necessary to combine them. The last couple of child categories can just be removed and the rest deleted. I'm not so sure "panoramas" is a topic or subject anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, then on top of that you have all these "views from" categories that are children of Category:Views by viewpoint that don't make any sense what-so-ever. Like Category:Views from Mars that are literally just images of Mars. Category:Views from Tell es-Sultan where half the images seem to be of Tell es-Sultan even if they were taken from there. Which makes no sense what-so-ever (most photographs taken somewhere will be a view of that place to some degree. Especially if it's just an image of the ground or whatever).
So yeah, I really don't see the point here or how the issues can be solved. It's pretty clear know one has any clue what the various "views" categories are for or how to use them. This is the epitome of a category that is to ambiguous to be useful. I guess we could turn it into a CatCat that would only contain images by "viewpoint" but there's already Category:Viewpoints and people aren't even organizing files that way there. But my suggestion is to either do that, turn this into a dab, or get rid of outright since there's already multiple categories for this stuff that aren't as ambiguous. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that "views from" categories and children of Category:Views by viewpoint don't make any sense. In general I think it is good to know where photos (and other images) are taken from: this information gives context, perspective, and I think this kind of context is useful. So I want to keep these categories.
Yes, there might be a lot of categories with photos that do not belong there. I think after this discussion has been closed, those categories should be cleaned up. JopkeB (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not a fan of only cleaning things up because 99% of the time clean up either leads to the categories being deleted anyway or the same problem happens in a month or two because cleaning it up didn't actually solve anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be not so pessimistic. I think just cleaning up is not enough. Categories we clean up should have/get clear descriptions and get "See also's" for the categories that cause confusion. Maybe we can postpone massive problems some time ... JopkeB (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be such a Debbie Downer about it. I'm more then willing to try things your way and then go from there if people are still misusing the categories. Things will probably be better once they get organized and better defined. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category is now a mess: in subcategories "views" may be a synonym for "photographs", there may be redundant categories, it is unclear what the differences are between several category names. To be able to solve this, questions are:
What is the definition of "Views" in Commons?
In what kind of situations/for what types of photos should we use categories with "views" in the category name?
How can we prevent doubling categories? OR: What is for instance the difference between categories 'Rivers', 'Views of rivers' and 'Riverscapes'?
Analysis:
There are mainly three types of subcategories of "views of":
views of [topic] by angle
views of [topic] by viewpoint
-scapes
Related terms:
Panoramas (and Panoramic(s), which is a media type), Skylines, Horizons and more
"Views from" for the surroundings of a "Viewpoint"
Questions still open:
What is the definition of "Views" in Commons?
What are the differences between categories like 'Rivers', 'Views of rivers' and 'Riverscapes'?
What categories are redundant? Which categories should be merged?
To be kept:
views of [topic] by viewpoint.
Solutions/proposals (not be commented yet, a mix of ripe and green):
"Views from" should be confined/limited to photographs and other images taken from "panoramic viewpoints" or "wide-angle viewpoints".
Overview of at least several streets (just one or two streets, a bridge and a canal is not enough)
preferable from a high viewpoint, like a tower, roof or a high bridge
there are no other objects in close-up on the image, the main subject of the image should be the (wide) view, not something in the foreground of the image.
Make this category a disambiguous category.
Get rid of redundant categories, with the same subject as other categories that have less ambiguity.
First attempt: Sight, extensive/wide overview, preferable from a high viewpoint, with no objects in close-up. Please correct and/or expand this attempt. JopkeB (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2) What are the differences between categories like 'Rivers', 'Views of rivers' and 'Riverscapes'?
Personally, I don't mind if you sort Amsterdam that way, but I don't think it's an approach that should be generalized. For most categories, it's preferable to leave such views in the main category. I found it fairly annoying when a user started doing that for every possibly category with a mere dozen of images total. OTH, if you do start making subcategories for "views of", these could go into "cityscapes" or "general views of". ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Views of" shouldn't be systematically a parent of "Views from". A question is if the parent category for "views from" should be called "views from" too, or Views by location/by viewpoint or similar. ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Category:Viewpoints (landscape) seems to be a child of Category:Viewpoints. So I'm not sure how it would be any different, but whatever. your suggestion at least is one. This whole thing is making my head hurt. So I think I'll just defer to you and the other participants for now when it comes to the particulars of dealing with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing the question about category naming with the question about where to add the category in the tree. Please try to stay on topic. ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly it's a different problem to have consistency at the location level (bottom upon, as [[:Category:Views of <placename>]], etc) and the top level down Category:Views. As for intermediate levels .. I guess they are in-between. ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think maybe we could at least get rid of Category:Incidental views? A ton of images on here have incidental views of things in the background and it's not even clear what makes something "incidental" or not. Then we can go from there when it comes to other categories. You have to chop some dead branches to get to the rest of the tree sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is if there are good uses of these subcategories and if the name could be better (there does seem to be a need for categories of remote views including the object [4]. This is probably better discussed separately. As far as "Views" is concerned, I think they fall within "Views of" and not "Views from". ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to needlessly play devils advocate, isn't every photograph of a building we have on here a "view of a building"? Of course I see that Category:Views of buildings exist, but the subcats seem more like normal angles, not views. Take Category:Bottom views of buildings for instance. Those aren't photographs of the bottom of the buildings, their photographs of the buildings taken at a 90 degree angle. Or for File:Al Jarina mosque at night.jpg it's just a normal image. Category:Rear views of buildings maybe makes sense, but that's about it. Anyway, there seems to be a lot of overlap and redundancy between "views" and "angles." I think the second one is probably what most (if not all) of these categories are trying to get at. But to bring it back around, every image of X is inherently a view of X. So at least IMO "Views of" doesn't seem at all useful. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Why don't you tell me. The comment was in response to the last part of your message "as far as views is concerned, I think they fall within 'Views of' and not 'Views from.' So why did you bring that particular point up if it's not relevant to "incidental views"? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I just responded to your summary. Regardless, this isn't a simple problem that has a single solution. So I don't see anything with discussing multiple aspects of it. We can certainly discuss this in a way that is 100% precisely liner from one subject to the other in every single instance. I could care less if we discuss "incidental views", how "views" are different from "angles", or whatever. As long as this gets resolved in some way at some point. That's all I really care about. It's incoherent and all over the place to the small degree that it is due to the nature of the thing though. You just need to embrace the chaos ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably nothing? Not to speak for anyone else, but at least for me at this point it's more about better organizing and defining things then getting rid of any categories. Although ones that are ill defined and/or totally pointless should be gotten rid of but those categories seem mostly fine. I don't generally have an issue with "Views from" or "Remote views" categories. The main problem is how "views of" is just a synonym for "images of" in a lot of cases. Making it totally worthless. I'm kind of at a lose when it comes to a solution for it at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have an example of a "Views of" category that shouldn't either be a {{Catcat}} or upmerged?
And what to people think of "exterior views of" vs. just "exterior of"?
Aeronautical map doesn't exist as a concept, neither as an aeronautical product: only Aeronautical chart exists. For an authoritative reference, see ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization)'s Annex 4 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The title of this annex is Aeronautical Charts. ►Sampayu03:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not discussing this here, this is simply relevant info. "Aeronautical map" shows that term is well-used. The seemingly false term "Aeronautical chart" is most prominently used in the WP article and other than that only one case of usage has been provided which doesn't mean anything. When one organization uses a false term and other organizations use an accurate term the latter term should be used but more input would be good. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an AIS Tech/Spec (Aeronautical Information Services Technician/Specialist), but I no longer contribute with any wiki project. It's a shame that the Aeronautical chart article lacks references: whoever created it should've added inline references (or maybe they were added, but then someone with insufficient knowledge removed them? I didn't check the article's edit history, but I know that this type of thing happens, which by the way is one of the reasons why I don't contribute with wikis anymore). If this topic is interesting to you, I highly recommend referencing the aforementioned ICAO's Annex 4 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, because such Convention is currently signed by more than 190 nations (which means that, within the legal system of those signatory nations, such Convention stands at the same "enforcement level" of federal legislation) and, among other things, such Convention's Annex 4 defines what an "aeronautical chart" is. What follows is a transcription of what's written at its page 1-1 (published on 2009-11-19): Aeronautical chart. A representation of a portion of the Earth, its culture and relief, specially designated to meet the requirements of air navigation. In a nutshell: "Aeronautical map" isn't a technical/formal concept, and any map (like e.g. an aerial map) designated for air navigation is an aeronautical chart. ►Sampayu00:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this info! It is very helpful. What do you think about the title "Aeronautical charts (maps)" or something like that? I guess it could also stay as is and probably this should be added to the cat description. Will remove the charts contained it now but I think if the title stays as is this will cause further confusion/issues. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, a map is a depiction of landforms (the Earth's surface), despite of it having other layers of pictorial (image) information or not. A simple map that only depicts the Earth's surface is a map but isn't suitable for air navigation, therefore it's not an aeronautical chart.
If the map contains additional layers that make such map appropriate for air navigation (like e.g. a layer depicting geographical coordinates in either WCS or UTM format, another layer depicting the magnetic declination of each quadrant of coordinates, another layer depicting the airways that cross the sky above such landforms etc.), then the map incorporates elements that make it appropriate for air navigation, therefore such map is an aeronautical chart. One example of this is the World Aeronautical Chart (WAC).
However, an aeronautical chart doesn't have to have a depiction of landforms (like a map does) in order to be an aeronautical chart: it suffices that it contains pictorial elements that make it suitable/useful/appropriate for air navigation. For instance, it may consist of a depiction (drawing) of air routes that aircrafts flying by instruments (IFR navigation) must follow in order to approach an aerodrome for landing. One example of such chart is the Instrument Approach Chart (IAC).
Another example is the Parking Chart (PC): it depicts aircraft parking slots within an aerodrome, but it rarely depicts the aerodrome's surrounding terrain.
Are there any people with eyes in the world that are not looking at anything? Only the blinds are the one who are not looking at anything. The subcats should be directly categorized under Category:People by activity instead of this container category. If kept, this category should be tagged with {{Catcat}} to avoid categorizing files directly. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible to have a parent category for "people looking up", "people looking down", etc, other than "people by activity".
Keep for now. Not all contents are just by eye position or direction of gaze, so that may be a valid sub-index, but not for a straight rename. Josh (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel, Sbb1413 may be technically correct, in that of course most animals depicted on Commons are not wearing shoes and thus could be considered barefoot. However, I do not think that we need to maintain barefoot animals as a parent of this. As for statues, I would disagree that they should not count as people. A statue may not be a living, breathing instance of a person, but it is a depiction of a person, and the same could be said for every file of people of Commons: they are not people, just depictions of people. Josh (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel I agree with a merge, but I think it would be better to merge the other way, into Category:Barefoot people. This is more clearly in line with the Simplicity Principle, as it makes it clear that all contents should be people. I am dubious about whether or not 'barefoot animals' are a thing, but apparently since Sbb1413 has raised it, and another user has seconded the idea, it is potentially a thing, so best to have the most clear category name possible to make the scope non-ambiguous. Josh (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have been used as a catch-all for PLOS media uploads vaguely related to health and medicine; there's no common thread. Diffuse to more appropriate categories and delete. Omphalographer (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is the parent of a single category, and that category is itself questionable, it's hard to imagine a reason to keep this. - Jmabel ! talk01:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is covered by other cats and the problem of the cat can be readily seen by taking a look at it. Moreover, I address points once they are made.
I said "argue", not "argued" or "arguing". The included things aren't really mathematics. Just because numbers are involved in human body weight doesn't make it "Mathematics in medicine". The category or its current contents should be discussed on Wikipedia. Here it has one file whose relation/relevance is unclear and three cats – "Bacterial growth", "Body weight", and "Human body weight" – all of which are inappropriate and the I'll remove the cat on the last one since that is a subcat of "Body weight".
As an alternative to deletion one could move this to sth like "Numbers in medicine" or "Quantifications in medicine" (these are probably bad examples but something like that would work). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; Delete. While mathematics certainly plays a role in many areas of medicine, that relationship isn't a useful way of categorizing media. Commons categories shouldn't be used to represent abstract, non-hierarchical relationships between topics like "body weight is an example of mathematics in medicine"; that's more the domain of Wikidata. Omphalographer (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good rationale. The user who "invented" the cat is User:Je.rrt on Wikipedia, Allforrous only copied it to WP like many other categories, most of which are fine (but many not). Given the large number of categories created by that user that have been both nominated and deleted, the likelihood for it to be fine is lower but that's not a good reason just as a note. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
likely problematic, e.g. there a lot of interdisciplinary physics and the relevant subcats and files are missing but instead there is some random assortment of files not descriptive of it etc Prototyperspective (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the case for most (probably many exceptions) files from studies uploaded with the Open Access Media Importer bot. I think it creates more problems than anything else: these files clutter the search results and make many categories barely usable. For example, I had to move 10 k files to make Category:Videos of science at least somewhat navigable and useful which was entirely flooded with these kinds of usually irrelevant files. The same goes for Category:Videos of sensory system which only shows useful files after moving hundreds of files or to a smaller extent Category:Videos of feet where the useful files are now in a subcat. I'm all for importing lots of media from scientific studies as well as for increasing the use of semi-automatic and partially automatic importing but here I'm wondering whether it may be best to either delete all these Media Importer bot files that are neither in use nor get more than e.g. 30 views a month. Another idea would be that they are transferred to some other project (e.g. this one) that isolates them from WMC which would solve these issues but still enable finding/searching them and make it possible to easily import to WMC whenever such a file would actually be useful. I don't think it's good to have these files here and one can't tag >10 k files with a DR – again there would be exceptions. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of the problems associated with these giant dump of largely irrelevant video files is that these are often what causes the deepcategory operator to fail (phab:T369808). It may also cause issues with Web search engines indexing video files on WMC which apparently they still don't do. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong meaning "only Commons calls it that" or wrong meaning "it's generally known by the other name, but some refer to it as that"? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged and Alaexis: I have restored the categorization in question for the time-being. If consensus is to remove, that can be done upon closing this CfD. As I mentioned on the talk page, if there is a bigger policy change that needs to be made, we can discuss it there, but for individual cases, that's what CfD is for. Josh (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner, thanks for starting the process, I wasn't aware of it.
My argument against categorizing Abkhazia as a "territory under occupation by Russia" is that this is not a position held by the majority of the world's countries. See here for the list of countries that made statements to that effect, it's basically the US, EU and Japan.
Note that this is different from recognising Abhazia as part of Georgia. Only a tiny minority of countries recognise it as an independent state and this can be considered a fringe position. Alaexis (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis I think the only way to deal with this controversy is to categorize the main category under Category:Territories under occupation by Russia while not categorizing the subcats under Russia. Even though most countries don't hold this position, this is the de facto situation of Abkhazia. Although the region is occupied by Russia, it is not formally annexed into the country, so Abkhazia should be categorized under Georgia instead of Russia. Same case for occupied territories of Israel in Palestine, which should be categorized under the State of Palestine. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that "this is the de facto situation of Abkhazia"? See for example Unrecognized States The Struggle for Sovereignty in the Modern International System. It discusses Abkhazia at length, including the presence of Russian forces before and after 2008 but does not say that it's occupied by Russia. Alaexis (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there were no Russian troops then Georgians would be administrating the region. Maybe the Russians are not occupying the region. It's possible that they are on a long term beach holiday. With guns and tanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. You seem to ignore the local Abkhaz who had a war with Georgians in the 1990s. The categorisation should be based on scholarly sources and not on our own opinions. I don't think we're going to convince each other, let's hear other users' opinions. Alaexis (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis, @Laurel Lodged, as far as I understand the concept, at least here on Commons, is that "occupation" implies an entity (typically a state) which has actual ultimate authority over a territory which is not part of its own territory. They may rely on local actors as the executive element to exercise their authority through, but they must have more than just 'influence' over or covert manipulation of these local elements. The Allies in Germany after WWII would be an example. They clearly were "occupying" that territory from the end of war, as they exercised ultimate authority over the territory, but the territory was definitely not part of the Allies' countries. When East and West Germany became sovereign states, the relationship transitioned, and even though the Allied powers retained their military forces there and had a lot of influence over their respective Germanies, they were no longer true "occupiers" in the strict sense.
Looking at the history of Abkhazia from the USSR break up onward, I see a lot of influence and military intervention on the part of Russia as part of that country's continual efforts to destabilize various countries to hobble them from pursuing more profitable relationships with the rest of the world. Russian military presence and action has clearly been critical to Abkhazia maintaining its de facto independence from Georgia. There is also no question that Abkhazian authorities are mere puppets of Moscow in this game. However, and maybe I just missed it, but I am not finding the point where Russia actually has overtly exercised true authority over the whole of Abkhazia. Influence and manipulation? Absolutely! But occupation? I'm not so sure. Josh (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that the question is beyond doubt. But I'm happy to accept that your opinion was offered in good faith. That being the case, the prudent thing to do is to categorise on the basis of that doubt; which is to say, we do not have a consensus that it is a sovereign state but is, at best, only partially recognised as such. So remove the category "Territories under occupation by Russia" and keep the "Partially recognised" categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a generally and over the years increasingly held scholarly position that Abkhazia is de facto under Russian occupation. Russians have also admitted they recognized the Abkhaz independence in order to justify "legally" stationing regular troops (rather than the ligjtly armed "peace keeprs" prior to 2008) - ie an occupation force - upon so-called "invitation" by the "independent Abkhaz authorities". Does that mean Abkhaz don't have a will of their own? No, the two things are not mutually exclusive. This is a pallet with shades of grey, including that Russia likes to control Abkhazia, not for ulterior motives for Abkhaz independence and sovereignty, but for their own, such as to influence Georgia and the geopolitical and imperial ambitions. The military sector in Abkhazia is completely "owned" (controlled) by Russia, with Abkhaz being subordinated to Russian command. That's simply occupation in the very definition. In every other "sovereign" state in which a foreign power - even a friendly one - supercontrols at this level the military power structures there is no sovereignty but occupation dressed up as "voluntary". What this means for categorization here - I don't have a strict opinion on that. But dismissing the Abkhaz situation as not being a Russian occupation is simply ignoring the actual situation and understanding of the mechanisms at play. Labrang (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest waiting a few more days and unless new arguments are made here in the next couple of days, we should make the change based on the arguments made so far. Alaexis (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are two notable Hyderabads: the one in India and the one in Pakistan. However, almost all Indians, and most people outside India and Pakistan will think of the Indian Hyderabad and not the Pakistani one. Indeed, the dab page Category:Hyderabad has a lot of files related to the Indian Hyderabad. So I want to drop "India" from this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose yes its the largest and EnWP has it at the base name but not all Wikipedias do and the threshold for primary topics is higher here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: And what is the "higher" threshold? Searching "Hyderabad" in a web search engine gives zillions of results from India and a handful of them from Pakistan. Of course, users may say that it is obvious for me since I live in India, but even if I use a VPN for it, I would still get few results from Pakistan. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Hyderabad in India is larger, true, but they're both large cities with millions of inhabitants - this isn't a situation like Category:Paris vs. Category:Paris, Texas / Category:Paris, Idaho / etc where one city is several orders of magnitude larger than the others sharing its name. It isn't clear that an unqualified reference to "Hyderabad" must necessarily mean the one in India, and media categorized under the wrong city won't always be obvious; having a disambiguation category to force users to specify which one they mean is helpful. Omphalographer (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear that an unqualified reference to "Hyderabad" must necessarily mean the one in India, and media categorized under the wrong city won't always be obvious;
It is clear that an unqualified references to "Hyderabad" must refer to the one in India. If you're talking about Hyderabad in Pakistan, you have to use "Hyderabad, Pakistan", otherwise you're talking about the city in India. This is the same as Category:London (England) versus Category:London, Ontario (Canada). You can also see that Category:Hyderabad, India is much more developed than Category:Hyderabad, Sindh (Pakistan), and some top-level subcats of Category:Hyderabad, India are already using "Hyderabad" without the disambiguator "India". If you search "Hyderabad" in a web search engine, virtually all the results you'd get would be related to the one in India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced it's always that clear. On an international scale - sure, the city in India will be assumed. But a user in Pakistan might use the unqualified name to refer to the city in their country; they aren't necessarily going to feel the need to disambiguate it in the way that a resident of Paris, Idaho would (for example). Omphalographer (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May be you find a contradiction in the categories ? I replaced "Construction in the canton of Geneva" by "Construction sites in the canton of Geneva". First action is demolition of the buildings on the site, construction as such will start soon. MHM (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What language is this category name supposed to be in? English is "Carousel", Catalan and Spanish are "Carrusel". Is there any basis for spelling this "Carrousel"? Jmabel ! talk23:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that makes sense. Probably deserves an explanation on the page, though I guess just linking this discussion from the talk page would do. - Jmabel ! talk16:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although there's a consensus to rename "activity people" categories to "people activity", what about "activity1 and activity2 people" categories? It contains files depicting people lying with people standing. So I think this category should be renamed to "people lying with people standing". Joshbaumgartner has worked extensively on people categories, so I'm pinging him here. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 For categories which combine two different activities, the first thing is to be clear which kind of combination is intended:
One activity being done by one person while a second activity is being done by another person, or
One person doing two activities simultaneously.
A category name such as Standing and lying people is not immediately clear which is intended, so it is not a good format for the name. Of course, I'm not sure how a person can be both standing up and lying down simultaneously, so one can argue that in this case since only one of the two options is possible, it therefore doesn't matter what the format is, but I would disagree as we should have a consistent format for each of the two cases above that doesn't rely on parsing the feasibility of the exact actions included. I think your proposed wording for the second case is correct, as is the example you found. I believe the following two formats are the correct ones for the two situations:
This is a weird name for a category and I don't think there is grammatical precedent of this word choice - we don't have "Maps where Russia control" either. I would understand "Maps that mark Crimea as under control of the Russian Federation" or "Maps showing Crimea as part of the Russian Federation" or "Maps of the annexation of Crimea by Russia" or ... Enyavar (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide that this other category has a passable name, then I think we can rename to "Maps where Crimea is marked as Russian territory". But I dislike both names to be honest and think the other could be changed too. As for your question: no, this war is a rather unprecedented conflict and Category:Territorial disputes by country gives little guidance for naming schemes. I would also nominate the "Category:Maps of temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine to get included in this review, since we have no idea yet how temporary the nature of the occupation really turns out to be.
"Maps of Ukraine under Russian occupation" should be okay for maps of the current active war area. For maps of the whole RF that "silently" include occupied territories, I suggest "Maps of Russia and occupied territories of Ukraine", and then subcategorize further by stage of the war. --Enyavar (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be fixed now. Thanks. I'd go ahead with Paris too. I cleaned up a few other that should be "Details of" in the meantime. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable and uncontroversial, I'd proceed. Some Wikipedias use "Erling Braut Haaland", but generally have redirects at "Erling Haaland". Enhancing999 (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete; unnecessary category created by another editor that duplicates Category:2022 photographs of Santa Monica, California by Another Believer Another Believer (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a duplicate. The files in this category should still be properly categorized. Files that have been properly categorized can be removed from this category. They will stay in the other category. This category may be deleted when all the files in it are properly categorized and be removed from this category. The other category will stay. JopkeB (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with the person who made this unnecessary category. Please either delete, or make the category more general (like for photographs of Santa Monica, California to be categorized) and not specific to my user name. Thanks -Another Believer (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would not change the name of the category: There is no one else who uploaded so many photos of Santa Monica that are not properly categorized. So I hope you will categorize your own photos properly, others won't do it. JopkeB (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking you to change the name of the category. I am asking others to change the name of the category because I do not think this is necessary. Demanding I categorize images which are fine in Category:2022 in Santa Monica, California does not seem appropriate. I hope other editors will respect my request and I will not be commenting here further. -Another Believer (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this category is overcrowded. You have to scroll endlessly to find a photo that you like for using in for instance Wikipedia. And a lot of subcategories already exist: then you have to look at two places, while people expect only to have to look in the subcategory. See also Modularity principle: The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories). And when there are a lot of files (more than three, preferably more) about a subject which has no (sub)category yet, then you can create one. JopkeB (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2022 in Santa Monica, California not good enough because files should not only be properly categorized on date, but also for topics like subcategories of buildings, sculptures and streets: not only WHEN categories should be added, but also categories about WHAT and WHERE exactly. For example: people who are looking for images about fire stations in Santa Monica should be able to find your photos as well. JopkeB (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand: Category:Santa Monica has many subcategories that are more specific; the only thing is, that your photos should be added to the correct ones. JopkeB (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, that Category:Santa Monica, California already is overcrowded. And for single files (all uploaded by different users) I usually do not mind categorizing them. But I think that 162 (was over 200) files uploaded by one user, should be properly categorized by that user. I sometimes create categories like this because it lightens the main category and it makes clear what is to do. Usually when I create such a category, users categorize their files, afterwards I ask for deletion of the category and the users do not make such a fuzz about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JopkeB (talk • contribs)
The additional categorization isn't a requirement of something the user has to do, so it's unclear why you insist on having their name on it. "Overcrowded" isn't really an issue that needs the creation of a meaningless subcategory. Categories don't have a technical limit on the number of files they can hold. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree:
It is the job of uploaders to categorize their own uploads properly, especially when they upload thousands of media, like Another Believer. Who else will do that? The name is an encouragement to the uploader to take action. So it is not a meaningless category name.
We call a category "Overcrowded" when it has more than 200 files and is not a longlist. This is not a technical thing, but a functional one with the end user in mind: how can you find an image if you have to search page after page (that makes the searcher despondent and we will avoid that), as well as in the subcategory/ies with the name of the subject?
The additional username has no meaning to users search for Santa Monica. Even if detailed categorization would be helpful, I doubt we have a policy that supports your requirements. I think we are already grateful that the photographer chose to share their images here. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second one is supposed to be temporarily. (Sometimes it can disappear even within one week, when there is a cooperative uploader.)
Well, I hope you are right about the gratefulness. But I can't help but get the impression that too often uploading a mass of photos is not about contributing for "educational purposes", as is the scope of Commons: because then the uploader would care to make his/her photos better findable; too often there may be other motives (to put it mildly). JopkeB (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999: Would this mean that uploaders cannot be held responsible for properly categorizing their uploads when they upload big numbers of photographs about the same subject? Then I would call this "dumping" of photographs, not for the benefit of Commons, but for personal reasons. And in fact those uploaders are then using us, volunteers, as their servants to do the job. I refuse to cooperate with that view. I am happy to help bringing down the number of categories in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion, but I will not properly categorize photos of dumpers who have free reign. I see more and more categories overflowing with these kind of dumpings. Removing those photos to a seperate category will bring the numbers of photographs in an overcrowded category (it might even be enough to bring the number below 200), which makes it more easy to properly categorize the remaining images in a category. How would you like to solve this problem, do you have a better solution? JopkeB (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I already gave my view on the topic above. There is a separate process for images that are not categorized at all. Users get notified by bot. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the issue with creating sub-categories for user's uploads that contain their names in them? I ask I've done it myself a few times without anyone caring and it just seems super nitpicky in this case because there's already Category:2022 photographs of Santa Monica, California by Another Believer. Like all that's being done here is the addition of "uncategorized images" to it. They clearly don't care about the images being in a specific category with their name in it outside of that though. So I don't really see what the problem is (you could maybe argue "uncategorized images" are pointless in general, but it's a pretty established system. So that's another issue). --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might help speed things up if you gave an actual reason why the category should be deleted instead of just stomping your feet over it. Otherwise realistically you could have just categorized the images in a lot less time then this has been open, which would have dealt with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given a reason: the category is completely unnecessary. I'm a longtime Wikimedian and Wikimedia Commons contributor making a very reasonable request. To me, this feels like JopkeB is creating a "problem" from a non-issue, then asking me to address the non-issue. Sorry but I don't feel a need to categorize every single image to JopkeB's liking. Please delete or rename this category as soon as possible, thank you. -Another Believer (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's already Category:Files needing categories by user, which contains 22 subcategories. So clearly it's useful to someone for something. You can claim JopkeB is just creating a "problem" from a non-issue but she's not the one who came up with it. Although I agree that it's probably pointless as a long-term category. It's perfectly reasonable to have temporary categories for images that still need to be organized. I don't think anyone is expecting you categorize every single image to JopkeB's liking in the meantime, but your the one demanding that the category be delete this instance simply because you don't like it. So I mean, if you really want it delt with that quickly cool. Categorize the images yourself. Otherwise it's probably going to take some time for someone else to do it if you aren't willing to. That's life though. Sorry. Your acting the category is a stain on your reputation or something when your literally the only one who cares about it. It's just a category and that's going to be removed as soon as the images are organized it's totally meaningless beyond that. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buildings in Santa Monica, California is not specific enough. There should at least be a category about the type of building or the street/neighbourhoud. And if there is none: create one. For example: I can still not find your photos about the fire station by just searching. So that is not good.
We will not create similar categories with your username if you categorize your photos properly. This one will be deleted after you have properly categorized all the files in it. JopkeB (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually planning on categorizing some of them myself but it's kind of impossible without actual descriptions. That might be an option though since files really shouldn't just have the date they were taken for their descriptions anyway. Otherwise Another Believer should be the one to do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree: all files should have a description about what we see and where the photo is taken.
Your refusal to rename the category does not inspire me to collaborate; in fact, I find it very frustrating that my very reasonable request is not being honored. I don't know how many times I have to ask, but please rename the category to not include my username. -Another Believer (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not close this discussion, nor delete the category. The files may have been removed, the problem still has not been solved. --JopkeB (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Just an FYI, but it looks like Another Believer has since emptied the category and added a bunch of random, clearly wrong categories to the files in the interim. Thus, making the issue way worse. Good luck sorting through the whole thing now. But at least the category can be deleted since it's empty. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good. Its on you to make sure the categories are correct when you move images and this isn't my thing anyway. You and JopkeB really need to work it out. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: this is a problem for Commons (and Another Believer), not just for me, I am just the messenger. So I hope this is not something to work out by Another Believer and just me, but for Another Believer and the Commons community. JopkeB (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I think your expecting to much of out of this. At the end of the day there's zero point in trying to maintain any kind of standards or specific way of organizing things on here. Especially when it comes to something like this since the project bends over backwards to coddle uploaders. I don't think the Commons community at large really cares about it either way though. From what it sounds like at some point their going to be moving away from categories in favor of structured data anyway. So these are pointless things to discuss or argue over. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the contents here are really just People looking at viewer. Staring is looking or gazing at a particular subject for a prolonged time, so I am not sure how this can be captured by a still photograph. If there is any content really depicting staring (video maybe), it can simply live at Category:Staring. This category can be deleted. Josh (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but think that most of these images are here essentially on the basis that some subject's unique expression or natural look appeared unusual or unsettling to some users, prompting them to put them in a special category. For example, File:Husein Aftab Cumber.JPG seems to be just a normal person posing for an otherwise unremarkable professional portrait shot with no indication he is staring. In File:Elena Khlibko Russian actress.jpg, the subject is a little more posed, and perhaps is opening her eyes slightly wider than usual, but it is not clear, and still not any indication that she is staring. In File:Kotovskyy.jpg, the subject is certainly opening his eyes pretty wide, apparently for effect, but even here, there is nothing in the image to communicate that he is staring versus doing a quick 'bug eye' look or some other expression. It is certainly possible that any or all of these are indeed staring, but there is no basis for us to assume they are.
Even if we were to interpret this category as "eyes that look like they are staring", only the last one comes close to qualifying, unless all people 'looking at viewer' (which we already have categories for) qualify, in which case, the category is just duplicative. If we are going to keep this for cases such as Kotovskyy.jpg, then it should be more appropriately descriptive, such as Category:People with wide open eyes. Josh (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Enhancing999, the station building is just a part of the station, and not even the most important part. A lot of the "mess" exists precisely because people make the same mistake as the OP and think that a train station is a building, rather than a place where trains stop, for example categorising a station as a "former train station" after the station building has been demolished even if trains are still calling every day and hour. Merging the categories will only make the confusion worse. ACo2c (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, stations (that is, the place where trains stop) can move away from station buildings as it happened a couple times (e.g. Frankfurt-Niederrad whose old station used to exist above Goldsteinstraße but has been moved to Lyoner Straße since then — the building naturally stood in place up until its recent removal). This alone is reason enough to keep station buildings separate from railway stations because one isn't reflective of the other.
Besides: If you have enough images, it makes sense to split a station between platforms and buildings anyway so we're back at square one on having a "redundant" category. ManuelB701 (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Food and drink obviously aren't the same thing. Per Commons:Categories "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided." Category:Food and Category:Beverages seem to already exist. Although weirdly they are both subcategories of this one. In the meantime the Wikidata for this is "eating." Yet Category:Eating doesn't have an infobox for some reason. Probably because it's being used here. Anyway, I was thinking about just merging everything in these "food and drink" categories into Category:Food and Category:Beverages. It seems like this and those categories have all been around for about as long as each other though and this is pretty well established. So I'm not really sure if that's the best option or if this should just be kept regardless of the guideline. Anyone have any thoughts about it? Adamant1 (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are subcategories but there are also many files that relates to food and drink as one subject where these can't and/or shouldn't be disentangled. For example, restaurants or the subcats also having "food and drink" in the title. The cat scope and title is appropriate. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, restaurants or the subcats also having "food and drink" in the title. Can you give an example? I don't its worth a whole duplicate category structure that goes against the guidelines just because a couple of resturants have "food and drink" in their name. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There may be issues with how this is subcategorized but Resturants is in the cat via "Dining" and "Food and drink culture" among at least one other cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No because they can't be disentangled but conceptually are one – people go to restaurants to have food and drink. Yes, there's much to "food and drink" isn't a culture or cultural practice...nevertheless food (and drinks) is cultural, so maybe this needs some overhauls. But the point made doesn't change and it doesn't affect the validity of the cat scope and title. Some things are unified conceptually but composed of things which we distinguish, maybe there should be a single word for that or something. Also see Category:Food and drinkPrototyperspective (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your confusing an action for objects here. Food is an object. The action of preparing and eating food is an action and what makes it a cultural thing. I have no problem with having a category for "people going to resturants", but then we litterally already have that with Category:People in restaurants. Feel free to create Category:People eating in restaurants if you don't think that works, but you'd have to agree Category:People fooding and drinking in restaurants doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. Same goes for making "people eating in restaurants" a subcategory of this one because again "eating" is an action, not an object. Regardless, "people eating in restaurants" is yet another situation (out of the what five now that you've mentioned?) where we already have another category for it that works perfectly fine. Ergo this category inaproprate for that usage. It seems like your just throwing darts at the wall here in the hopes that one sticks though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some (if not most or all) categories clearly can and should be. Which specific categories do you think can't be though? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich würde nicht sagen, dass die beiden Kategorien völlig redundant sind, aber ich stimme zu, sie zusammenzuführen. Die beinhaltet Unterkategorien, die ich für bedenklich halte: und . Aus meiner Sicht besteht ein gravierender Unterschied zwischen einem Internierungslager und einem Konzentrationslager. Konzentrationslager waren Lager zur (industriellen) Vernichtung von Menschen wie Auschwitz und viele andere. Davon gab es aber in Frankreich nur eine Einrichtung , alle anderen Lager ware – auch trotz der häufig katastrophalen Bedingungen für die Internierten – Internierungslager. Mit ist aber auch bewusst, dass in Frankreich der Begriff "Camp de concentration" sprachlich anders konnotiert ist und im Sinne von zusammenfassen, konzentrieren etc. anfangs auch auf Internierungslager angewandt wurde. -- (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, der neutrale Oberbegriff ist "Internierungslager". Das schließt nicht aus, dass Unterkategorien auch Konzentrationslager beinhalten. Das ist ganz im Sinne der Kategoriestruktur auf Commons: Alle KZs dienten der Internierung; nicht alle ILs waren KZs. (Alle ILs waren Gefängnisse, nicht alle Gefängnisse sind Lager... etc.)
Yes, the neutral term is "internment camps", but that doesn't mean that subcategories can't be about concentration camps - according to the category structure in Commons. --Enyavar (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Icelandic-language logos: High overlap with Category:Logos of Iceland. Iceland only has one mother language, so having one category for the language and one for the country does not make sense. Category:Icelandic Wikipedia logo moves over and also the two files.
Yeah, but not all Icelandic logos are in "Category:Icelandic-language logos" and the same applies to the SVG subcategory. The status-quo (keeping it as-is) is still bad.
While moving icelandic logos to the "icelandic-language logo" category, and having it as a subcategory of "Logos of Iceland" is not my proposal, it would still be a improvement.
The infobox put this into categories Physicians from North AmericaPhysicians from South AmericaPhysicians from AfricaPhysicians from Oceania. I dont know how to edit it Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a matter for discussing the category. I think it's an issue with the template.
In any case, it might be because the UK has territories in all those places. I tried tweaking the template parameters. By specifying "the United Kingdom" instead of just "United Kingdom," it got better, but lost the "physicians by country" category. I see something similar with categories of the Netherlands that use Template:Topic by country. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999 The template implements current policy, as stated. Possible changes to that policy are being discussed. As already mentioned, the concept of transcontinental countries and how we address them is under discussion. Additionally, there is discussion on the scope of the United Kingdom and how we categorize within it. Both of these are relevant to this category, and so making guerilla attempts to do something different in the meantime is not a good plan. Better would be to contribute to those discussions. If policy is changed as a result, the templates will be changed to comply to the new policies. Josh (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is the general scheme, another is its applicability to specific fields or categories. It's not "policy" because you made it into a template most people struggle to edit. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This whole "books by city of publication" thing seems like rather pointless over categorization since in most cases the city of publication has absolutely nothing do with the book. Let alone is it a defining feature of one. I think this could be done better through categories, creator templates, and infoboxes for the publisher anyway. Which I think categories like this one are actively getting in the way of people creating and using. So does anyone care if I axe it in favor of that or have any other opinions about the categories usefulness (or lack of it)? Adamant1 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see sense or usefulness in this categorization either. However, maybe it is different for older books so maybe one could consider moving to "Books published before 1800 by city of publication" and removing all newer books' media from the subcats in that case. More discussion seems likely needed here. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their sort of related, but the phrasing is different. Although I'd say both are kind of pointless, but at least with the country of origin your kind of talking about the culture of where the book came from and there's enough subcategories to justify it. Plus I think that's something people talk about with books a lot. How many books are specifically notable for being published in Zagreb versus being about Zagreb or published in Croatia though? I'd say there that probably "books published Croatia" could be justified. As well as maybe "books about Zagrab" depending. But "books published in Zagrab" just seems like a meaningless data point. Although perhaps we could keep a few that clearly have historical importance per Prototyperspective. I wouldn't neccessarily have an issue with that as long as there's some kind of specific scope to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For books, copyright status depends on these two. Something much talked about at Wikimedia Commons.
"by city of publication" just seems to be a subcategorization of the country (or rather the country of origin a parent to that as the data point is the city).
Keep "City of publication" is one of the characteristics of a book, just like "Country of origin". A good book description (for example in a library catalogue) should contain the city the book was published. It is useful in Commons because:
It is an extra possibility to find a book in Commons, the main reason why a category exists.
This category has a lot of subcategories, so a lot of editors think it is a useful category, they put their time and effort in it to build such a category structure and put relevant files into it. Though they might not join this discussion, it is a factor to take into account.
It is, or should be, linked to the economy of a city: books are not only about literature and culture, but are also products that are being sold to get money/profit. It gives an answer to the question: what kind of products contribute to the economy of a city? Just as we link other kind of products to a location.
And indeed: it is a way to lighten overcrowded country categories.
Name a couple of books where the city of publication is at all notable or has anything to do with it outside of the place being where the publisher is located, which like I said above can already be shown through infoboxes or "book publishing companies in" categories. If nothing else these categories are just needless duplicates of later. Although "book publishing companies by location" categories might be this developed, but so what? That's not an excuse to keep these and if anything keeping them just gets in the way of people creating city level categories for specific publishers. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point. For me all cities of publication are notable, for all books. And it looks like this applies to many others as well, including the persons who created and maintained Template:Book. Place of publication is always a part of the description of a book (or of any other publication). Well, just one example: some subjects, like christian literature, might often be published in specific places that are associated with the subject, for christianity Salt Lake City in the USA and Kampen in the Netherlands.
And not all publishers have (yet) their own category, so that is another reason to put books in the city of publication; and publishers might move to other places, as a result of which the original city of publication would be out of sight.
What about my other arguments?
By the way: Wikidata infoboxes are not categories, just infoboxes, they are not part of the category structure, which is made and built to find images and other media. JopkeB (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at least on my end was and still is 100% about that. And I still haven't seen anyone provide a legitimate reason why this can't just be done with the categories for book publishers instead. Otherwise your just advocating for "books by city of publication" along with "book publishers based in city X" that would contain the categories for the books anyway. Which just seems totally pointless. And BTW, I know infoboxes aren't categories. But I never said we should just do this with infoboxes either. You can't tell me some combination of the other 15 options out there for this besides these categories wouldn't work just as well or better though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In some countries, publishers are all in the same city and they only publish in that city. In others, not. They may even publish in different countries. It doesn't really help if you put books into random "places of publication" or "countries of origin". Whether book files should also be sorted by publisher is another question, not directly relevant to your initial concern. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly would my suggestion "put books into random "places of publication"? If there's a category for a book titled X, which is a category called "books published by X publisher", which is in the category for the publisher and that category is in "book publishers in X location" then I don't really see how that's random or doesn't do the exact same thing this does. That's literally how we categorize things. There's no other category that I can think of where we have "X by city of publication." There's no category like that for music, video games, or anything else that I can think of. The only comparison I can think of is "movies filmed in X location" but it seems like the general consensus is against them. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly publishers based in the Vatican City are only based in that city and don't publish in any other city, so for these it wouldn't be random.
Honestly I'm not really sure what to say about your reasons for keeping the categories. As they just seem circular and based on personal opinions.
It is an extra possibility to find a book in Commons Everything is an extra way to find something on Commons. That's not an argument for or against keeping the categories though. Especially since I've suggested multiple alternatives that would work just as good or better.
This category has a lot of subcategories, so a lot of editors think it is a useful category Sure, people create categories. Again though, that's not an argument either way. People also created the categories for "historical images" which you seem to be perfectly fine with deleting regardless.
It is, or should be, linked to the economy of a city. Uhhh, I don't know about that. The books aren't actually being sold in the city of publication in most cases and it would be super obtuse if we started sub-categorizing every image of a product on here by the city where it was manufactured. Not to mention a lot of products might be "published" by a certain company but not actually produced there to begin with. It's not like that couldn't be covered by the categories for the publishing companies though. But it would super pointless to have a category for books "published" in a place like Atlanta just because the book publisher has an office there when the books are actually produced in Germany and shipped to a completely different location to be sold.
And indeed: it is a way to lighten overcrowded country categories. Look into categories for postcard publishers. I'm not going to harp on it at this point but I could probably make a good argument for getting rid of the country level categories to based on how the publishing and manufacturing industries actually work. At the end of the day though both the country and city categories have absolutely no bearing in the real world what-so-ever in most cases though. Both are just needless trivia that's probably wrong in a lot of, if not most, cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About your alternatives: The only one I could find is: to filesand categories about books a category "like book publishers in X location" should be added. Is that right? This is only valid if a book publisher always publishes books at one place. But: they move, acquire other book publishers in other cities (or get acquired themselves), change their names, and so on. Then we should create (sub)categories for all those entities (Books published by Publisher A in location X) to get it right. If you can garantee that this will always happen, then I agree with you. But then also categories should be made for publishers of whom only one file or subcategory is in Commons.
(1) "Historical images" is a vague concept and there are better alternatives for. And I am pretty sure that each file that will be removed from a historic category, will get a better one. But here it is about concrete concepts. And I get the impression that files will be removed from Category:Books by city of publication or its subcategories, but will not (always) get an alternative, which is loss of information. Or are you intending to check every file wether it has a "book publishers in X location" category?
(2) Again: A lot of editors have put time and effort into this category tree. I am always very angry when my work is destroyed. That is a consideration here. And this category tree was not made with a vague concept, but people created these categories with a reason: location is an established item in cataloging books, so for many people it is logical to have a Commons category for it as well. Don't write about them as if they are nitwits.
Yes, I agree: if you can indeed garantee that all the necessary categories about Books published by Publisher A in location X will be created and be a subcategory of Economy in location X (or one of its location parents), then this will be enough.
At the moment location is an important aspect in the Commons category structure. So for now let's keep and make use of it. You can start another discussion about this question.
It's late so I'm not going to answer everything at this point. Although I take offense to your "Don't write about them as if they are nitwits" comment. I'm not saying they are nitwits. People tend to create categories simply because similar ones exist without taking into account if it's logical or a good thing to do. So I don't find the mere existence of categories a compelling reason to keep any particular category structure. It's not like their work is just wasted if we create something else and move the files into the new categories anyway.
But let me ask you this, say a book is written by a guy who lives in Atlanta, he then goes to Random House which is located in New York to "publish" the book. They then have it printed by a company in Germany, who ships the finished copies to multiple Barnes & Nobles in different cities around the United States. One of which sells the first copy. Although there's no way to know which store sold it. Where exactly is the city of publication there? Or do you think that every copy of a book is just printed and sold by Random House from a backlot factory and storage facility in New York? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I misinterpreted your remark about people creating categories and offended you.
In your example the city of publication would be New York. The publisher is the entrepreneur, coordinator, organizor and supervisor of all the activities needed to have copies of a book been sold to bookshops, from contacts with the author, the German printer and bookstores like Barnes & Nobles, to the shipping and marketing. The publisher is the one who takes risks, takes care of the payments throuthout the production chain and hopefully makes some money at the end. JopkeB (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It happens. I expected you to give that answer. Not to say we should go with the legal definition of publication, but at least in that case for a work to be "published" a certain number of copies have to be sold to members of the public. So at least legally the city of publication wouldn't be where the publisher is located. As they aren't members of the public who are buying the book. I guess we could just go with them anyway, but then I still haven't seen an argument for why it would be different then "book publishers in X" location categories. Since that's essentially what your saying, not that the book was published in New York but that the publisher is located there.
I'm not a fan of using our own definitions for things when perfectly adequate and well established one's already exist either. Yet, if we were to go with the legal definition there would be no city of publication. Only the country. Which at least IMO is totally fine. We don't need it to be this detailed. Otherwise why not the borough or street at that point? I'm sure there's been multiple book publishers in the same area of the Bronx in the last 200 years. How about "books published in Fordham Road"? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot: the city of publication is in a book, usually on the title page or in the colophon, near the name of the publisher. You can also find it in Worldcat. So we do not have to worry about it, and the borough or street is not an option. JopkeB (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's how people are categorizing the files to. Right. Regardless Again, it's the city of publication in a meaningless way that just means where publication company is located. Not the actual location of publication. Its pretty clear your intent on just ignore what I'm saying about it though. But lets say I go with that as the standard even if its total nonsense, then you agree that books shouldn't be categorized by "city of publication" if that information either isn't explicitly stated in the book if its a pdf or we don't have a way of knowing either way because its just an image of the cover? (In the last instance categorizing it by city would clearly be based purely on where the publisher is located). And why wouldn't borough or street be an option along with the city if its stated in the book since that's litterally your only standard here? There's certainly plenty of other things categorized that by street or neighbourhood. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preference scheme for adding categories about "city of publication" to files or categories about books would be now:
Add the publisher, including the city of publication, like Books published by Publisher A in city X.
If there is no such category and it is not desirable to create one: Add the publisher and make sure the city of location is one of the parents.
If the city of location of the publisher is not the same of that in the book and it is no option to create a category Books published by Publisher A in city X for the location where the book was published, then add a category for City of publication to the book.
If there is no category for the publisher and it is not desirable to create one: then add a category for City of publication.
City of location can nearly always be found in book. And if there just is a cover or another medium that not shows the location, you can nearly always find it in Worldcat. And if not: just do not mention such a location for the book (but this will be a rare exception).
Of coarse you can add a borough or a street to a book, but that would be meaningless to me. I would value it though, if they were added to the publisher.
And again (from me also): that you think that the 'city of publication' is meaningless/nonsense in Commons, does not mean that others can have another opinion. JopkeB (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily have an issue with doing it that. Although I think it just creates needless, extra duplication in the long run. But you could argue this should stay at least until the Books published by Publisher A in city X categories are more fleshed out at least if not beyond that. My main issue is with people putting books in categories for "city of publication" when all we have is the cover and it hasn't been verified simply because the book publisher has an office in that city.
And that's what I'm saying is meaningless nonsense, BTW. Your way of doing it makes sense, but I doubt that's how people are actually doing it and I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to verify the city of publication for every book on Worldcat. One of the reasons I started this discussion is because I have upwards of two hundred thousands images of book covers that I got from Flickr and plan to upload at some point. I'm obviously not going to be able to confirm the city of publication for all of those books on Worldcat. Yet I feel like if I categorize the images based on the publisher and the publisher is the child of a "book publishers in city X" category then people also randomly and wrongly add these categories along with it. I'm not going to arbitrary add one of these categories to the images just because the publisher is based in the city either. So I don't know.
Would you at least be more willing to support getting rid of these once the ""book publishers in city X" are more fleshed out? I'm more then willing to concede that they are a bit anemic at this point and it's probably not worth getting rid of these categories until that's not the case. I don't think they should exist beyond that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when a new subcategory of Books published by Publisher A in city X is created (see step 1.), then the books for it can move from other categories (step 2., 3. or 4.) to the new category, as usual. Then there is no need anymore to keep them in the old category. Is this a sufficient answer, also to your last question?
Yes, that is a problem: that people/editors just putting files into categories where they not belong or not investigate all the way. Uploading 200.000 images of book covers is really a lot! (And the copyrights for all are OK?) I understand that you cannot check them all in Worldcat. Sometiems it's a matter of making do with what you have. My scheme is an ideal one, perhaps not always applicable. JopkeB (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep.For me, it's like proposing to remove category branches like "Historical images by city". This category shows the history of literature and printing on area. It is a subcategory of the category Media (which in my opinion should be as voluminous as possible- but by itself, it has only a few subcategories - but they are all huge inside: images, videos, audios, documents and publications and e.t.c. from this place) and if we get rid of it, then a lot of data related to media for a particular city will simply disappear. You may accuse me of being a silly, but for me these categories are literally like local museums of printing.Literature printed in Hong Kong and literature printed in St. Petersburg differ significantly . I will even say that books from Moscow and St. Petersburg have a differences. It's actually quite difficult for me to explain why I'm a supporter of these categories... It's a question of culture, of cultural history for me. Let's leave this category group , like a cultural history. Miikul (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
media for a particular city This seems like you confused this category to be about books about a city rather than just happening to be printed at a specific city. Could you clarify? like a cultural history. The particular city where a book has been printed isn't the cultural history of the city, the book could have been written elsewhere and it's the history of the broader polity/country. Instead, please create a category for Books by city of location of the author if such doesn't yet exist, then your points would make sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not read that in Miikul's reaction, that (s)he talks about books about a city. But no matter what was meant: I think the kind of books (and other printed works) that are printed in a city say also something about that city at that time, for instance about the freedom of speech, the degree in which people felt free to write about hot issues, give their opinion and buy and keep such books, and other liberal rights in that city, about the things people were interested in (like cultures far away, history, science) and the kind of printed works, not only books, but also political pamphlets and caricatures. JopkeB (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that are printed in a city say also something about that city at that time would be good if you back that up with some sort of substantiation that includes some source(s). about the freedom of speech, the degree in which people felt free to write about hot issues, give their opinion and buy and keep such books, and other liberal rights that's more the location of the author & audience which can differ a lot from the place it's printed about the things people were interested in again the regional distribution of the audience, not the location of printing.
In any case, this isn't really the case anymore now – the city of printing doesn't say much about any of that, if anything it would be the country of printing or the city of the author so it doesn't make sense to also have recent books in there which would only make it more difficult to find the old books but the cat doesn't exclude albeit apparently only including old books so far. (That only books seem to be included with few or no exceptions means the cat is not as problematic as I thought.) Prototyperspective (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that does not need to be the location of the author and the audience. I remember I heard or read that in the 17th and 18th century some books were printed in the Netherlands (and Antwerp and Brussels) that were not written by Dutch people, nor in the Dutch (or Latin) language, because it was too tricky to print them in the home countries. Or, like Voltaire, writers even stayed a while in the Netherlands, Brussels or Antwerp because in their home countries they were persecuted. I am sorry I cannot find proof of that. JopkeB (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is extensive text including bare links to an external website at the top of this category. "NOTE TO RESEARCHERS", all caps, italics, and bold font as well as a line of stray text need to be discussed and determined if appropriate. I don't know if it is promotional or test edits. FeralOink (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked further, about what I referred to as "atypical" content for this Category. Per this comment by Billinghurst (paraphrased), Category definitions should be as short as possible, with references and commentary provided on the Category talk page. This Category as well as Harp guitars and and Harp organology (submitted to Cfd too) don't seem to conform. That is what I think needs to be discussed.--FeralOink (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is the "3a" here anything other than one writer's designation in a somewhat arbitrary list? Unless this terminology has wider currency, it does not belong in a category name. - Jmabel ! talk05:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jmabel! You are correct, however, there are many more, e.g. Category:Harp Guitar Form 3c, Category:Harp Guitar Form 2c. See the subcategories of Category:Harp_guitars for additional examples that I just found now. And they were all created by the same Commons user. Arbitrary assignment of "Form Nx" where N=the real numbers and x={a...z} is not how we should name categories (unless the terminology DOES have wider currency among harp guitar uh organologists, which I don't know. The same is true for Category:Harp Guitar "Relatives". Historical musical instruments that "aren't harp guitars but are relatives or distant cousins"?!--FeralOink (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it reasonable to include a link or reference explaining that "3a". I think the description should end and not start with the reference. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Enhancing999, that the category should not start with the reference, to avoid confusion and clutter. What is the difference though between 3a and 3c, i.e. do we truly need both?--FeralOink (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the reference is fine, but we should quote the minimum (the current lengthy quotation is excessive and might even have copyright issues). Also, assuming the "3a" etc. is entirely the creation of the one cited writer, this should be replaced by a descriptive phrase meaningful if not to the average person in the general population, at least to the average person likely to work on classification of instruments. - Jmabel ! talk19:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus "organology" here is a stretch. That is a biologists' term that has nothing to do with musical instruments. - Jmabel ! talk05:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That's what I thought too, about "organology" being organic, and not applicable to musical instruments. Not even a neologism... or something. I think the same user created another musical instrument category with organology in the name. --FeralOink (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing! Wikipedia has a page stating that organology is the scientific study of musical instruments... not to be confused with this dreadful, probably needs Xfd article about a HEC biz school guy's organizational behavior MOOC called orgology. Yet anatomy and the study of viscera and internal organs doesn't seem to have a defined term to describe it. Regardless, the rest is valid, i.e. that all those links and narrative belong on the Category talk page. Sorry for the external linking to en Wikipedia. I keep forgetting how to interwiki link.--FeralOink (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the subcategories fit. Thus I'd remove them and delete it as empty.
i suggest renaming the entire cat tree to "Category:Military aid for Ukraine from xx in the Russo-Ukrainian War" so that the scope is not limited to 2022. any objection? RZuo (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how is "Military aid for Ukraine from xx in the Russo-Ukrainian War" ambiguous? "military aid since 2014" fits into that. RZuo (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you any idea how much work this is? Because all the subcategories (and grandchilds and so on) should be changed too. Is it worth all the work? JopkeB (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, I did not know about this facility. It looks good. But can you ask to change all categories starting with "Tea houses" to "Teahouses, including the subcategories? Otherwise you have to create such a request probably about a hundred time and then it still is a lot of work. And you still have to check yourself whether all link have been moved properly too (for example in Wikidata items). JopkeB (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: Why do you want to rename this category (and its subcategories)? Somewhere on Commons I read that we should not follow every change on EN-WP, because overthere they change names and then later change it backwards.
I see that not all subcategories have the same name, there are also Tea rooms, which might refer to the same concept. Shouldn't we first get that right?
The listed categories should be deleted, because there is no evidence to suggest that the motorways exist or is planned. The road numbers also do not appear in Ministerial Decision ΔΟΥ/οικ/5776 (archived 2 April 2024).
I think that even if the A14 was previously planned, it is in my opinion that the motorway is not notable enough for a Commons category, especially when there is only one file that is part of an image set. A similar situation is the M15 in Great Britain, which has an article, but no Commons category. --Minoa (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say probably delete the others unless there is evidence that it is reasonably plausable more images can be added currently. Probably keep A14 due to as noted having 2 WP articles but I'm not really against deleting if that's the consensus since it seems it to may not have a reasonable scope for expansion and as noted M15 doesn't have a category. Are there other images like maps of the planned routes available to be uploaded? Presubaly such maps are not likely to be copyright. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the English dialects I'm familiar with, "sleeping cars", "sleeper cars" or just "sleepers" (in context) are common; I don't recall ever before hearing the phrase "sleeping trains" (which to me conjures up an image of a children's cartoon of an anthropomorphic locomotive taking a nap). Google verbatim search shows "About 1,670,000 results" for "sleeping cars"; "About 37,400 results" for "sleeping trains". "Sleeping trains" does not seem to be the common construction, and agree it should not be what we call them on Commons. Agree that what seems an undiscussed unilateral move should be reverted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Support revert as proposed, per above discussion; I see I'd not specifically voted previously. The move seems to be Prototyperspective unilaterally creating a neologism due to personal distaste to common and longstanding English language use of the word "car" with meanings other than "automobile". Wikimedia Commons category names should when practical align with common linguistic usage rather than to invent new terms when existing ones will serve. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose There is already a precedent. Category:Former Keyakizaka46 members ウィ貴公子 (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree One category is enough, let it indeed be Category:Surnames. JopkeB (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete Category:Event spaces (venues). RZuo (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Question
Merge to Category:Ghana, or simply 
Weak oppose yes its the largest and EnWP has it at the base name but not all Wikipedias do and the threshold for primary topics is higher here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
,_nivell_6,_el_Carrousel.jpg){kind=link}
Rename to Category:Tables (furniture), as this category has been misused to categorize the files that should belong to Category:Tables (information). The furniture is not a primary topic even in Wikipedia. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak support The furniture may be the original and most common term but as noted its not even primary on Wikipedia, see w:Talk:Table#Requested move and the threshold for primary topics for Commons categories is generally higher. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)