Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2009/10

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Archive October 2009

Category:AMX-32 tanks

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category-names for tank models, as for car models (or rifles), should not be in plural (tanks) but in singular (tank). Therefore, a user at the Forum has requested to change all tank-category names into singular form[1], and asked me to apply his request. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Which name do you or does he suggest? -- User:Docu at 09:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

tanks -> tank --Túrelio (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't be it be either:

• (1.) AMX-32 (tank) - if the name is "AMX-32"
• (2.) AMX-32 Tank - if the name is "AMX-32 Tank"
• (3.) AMX-32 tanks - if the name is "AMX-32"
• (4.) AMX-32 Tanks - if the name is "AMX-32 Tank"

rather than

• (5.) AMX-32 tank

The general convention is that category names be in plural (3.), possibly (4.). If the category is named after a specific model name, it would be (1.) or (2.). -- User:Docu at 10:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC), 10:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I'm not really interested in tanks, I hope user Roman, who original requested this, will participate in this discussion. The main issue was to change the cat names to singular, as this makes sense as with car or rifle models. Therefore, I would prefer either variant 1. or 5. As this request is not only for the AMX-32, but for all tank model cats (see under "Links to this page"), including such as Chieftain tanks, IMHO only your variant 5 would make sense. --Túrelio (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Túrelio's proposal in any respect. The plural form of specific vehicle models is completely wrong. It would be the best if the person that initialized that mass dislocation would take part at this discussion, too. Besides, in my view solution no. 5 is the best. --High Contrast (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The person seems to be Foroa diff. I didn't find any corresponding request on talk.

BTW, at WP, the articles are at en:AMX-30 and fr:AMX-30 (this one being French). -- User:Docu at 12:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do not discuss all category movements to "XY_tanks", not only this specific "AMX-32"-move. I hope User:Foroa will tell us his thoughts about it. --High Contrast (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe first the situation before I executed some cleanup in several armement categories. I spend an awfull lot of energy in cleaning up category names and experience shows that for categories, the first step is to have their naming consistent, and if needed, changing the naming notation in a second round. In Category:Main battle tanks, there where all sorts of naming rules, many of them plain wrong or against the basic Commons naming rule (COM:CAT: "The category name would be enough to guess the subject"). Obviously, then existing names as AMX-32, M47, MBT-70, T-55, T-62, Type 59, which I consider proper names, don't comply and become more and more in conflict with all sorts of alphanumerical namings such as for ships, aircraft, ...

Considering the main used naming in Category:Main battle tanks, the most consequent and easy way was to add the qualifier tank to the AMX-32, M47, MBT-70, T-55, T-62, Type 59... model names. It could have been xxx (tank) too, but the "xxx tanks(s)" form of naming was more prevailing. The form "AMX-32 Tank" is not acceptable as the tank is a generic term, cannot form part of the proper name and should hence not be capitalised. Commons uses plural for all its categories, including for example "Ford vehicles", not "Ford Vehicle". Basically it should be "Volkswagen Polo automobiles/cars/models", but we will all agree that we can drop the automobiles part of the name and that we can make an exception on the plural rule because "Volkswagen Polo's" or "Volkswagen Polos" would be quite funny.

So, we should not take the latter (exception) rule backwards and saying because we write "Volkswagen Polo" not in plural, the "xxx tanks" categories should be in singular as well. --Foroa (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can only answer in short due to lack of time. First part is OK, but that is not discussed here. Second part is particularly OK: the plural form of Commons cats is widely know (your "Ford vehicles" example), but this is not discussed here, too. Example: what about this: Category:M4 carbine? According to your logic that category name must be transformed into Category:M4 carbines. --High Contrast (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I see 3 possible solutions: "Colt M4", "M4 carbines" and "Colt M4 carbines". I hope that you will agree that many categories, such as category:Bolt-action battle rifles, Category:Assault rifles and category:Light tanks could use some clarification and harmonisation. --Foroa (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is very hard to agree on one scheme for categorynames. If you have only a few people you can ask it's quite easy. If you have a bunch of people who can't figure out one standart it's impossible to get rid of the mass many cooks have brewed (or: the mass many user who didn't know have created). I fully understand Foroa's solo attempt because it's not quite easy to figure out a standard on Commons (if it is possible at least). One problem is that some user want to have his or her own standard and do not accept anything else (maybe not here but it may would be like that if we would ask some more people). Another problem is that after some time nobody cares about such discussions any longer and they get lost somewhere on Commons. (I know that this is not actually a topic in this discussion. It's just about what beyond the rename thing is)
@ topic: I would support either (1.) or (5.) but I would prefer (1.). The reason is that many tanks have a name or nickname (such as the Leopard 2) which should not be plural. In (1.) and (5.) the name is not changed ("Leopard 2s" or "Leoprads 2" would be such a unfeasible plural form; (2.)-(4.) don't change the name as well. I just think that we shouldn't have categorynames like "M4 carbines") even (1.) shows people who don't know Commons exactly that eg. "Leopard 2" is the tank's name. If there would be a car named "Leopard 2" "Leopard 2 (automobile)" could be used. (2.) has the upper case letter "T" so some people may think that the tank's whole name is different. (3.) and (4.) are plural (which is widely used on Commons) but (again:) I think that names shouldn't be plural (Latin names of species are also singular without "whateverspeciess"). Example: I would move Chieftain tanks to "FV 4201 Chieftain (tank)" or "Chieftain (tank)" and Leopard 2 tanks to Leopard 2 (tank). However, I would not delete the old categories but rather create category redirects (eg. Category:Leopard 2 got deleted even some may search fo that categoryname because nearly every Wikipedia calles the article about the Leopard 2 "Leopard 2" or use different letters like ja.wikipeda ("レオパルド2") which say "Leopard 2" in that specific language. Just da.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia have an addition)
--D-Kuru (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would favour the singular for individual named systems. Taking the Leopard 2 example although a category may contain pictures of Leopard 2s the subject of the category is (The) Leopard 2. Although the plural is favoured for categories, this is not universal, eg Category:Panthera pardus pardus and not Category:Panthera pardus parduses.KTo288 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The addition tanks is useless. The category should be just AMX-32 --Avron (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, IMHO "AMX-32" is too unspecific, it could also be a CPU or whatsoever. --Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there another AMX-32? -- User:Docu at 01:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the rules in english and german wikipedias, there is no need for "forced" disambiguation --Avron (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Several reasons:

• en:AMX can be anything and on Commons we have much more "product number" like categories, Commons is not a wikipedia
• The basic Commons naming rule (COM:CAT: "The category name would be enough to guess the subject", AMX-32 stands for other things and products too, as here.
• Consistent naming system in a specific category. In Category:Main battle tanks, we can not use T55, T99, TAM, categories. --Foroa (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The subject of Category:Main battle tanks is main battle tanks of which there are many different types so would be correct, however there is no real reason to pluralise all subcategories of this category for reasons of consistentsy. We do not insist because the parent category is plural insist that all subcategories to be plural e.g. we do not have the category Category:Nokia 610xs rather than Category:Nokia 610x, because it belongs to Category:Nokia mobile phones (plural), and ultimately Category:Mobile phones (plural).KTo288 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The title would AMX-32, not AMX.

COM:CAT doesn't require to add a disambiguator either, nor do we have several categories named "AMX-32". Even if there are several Amsterdam, Category:Amsterdam doesn't have a disambiguator either.

"Consistent naming in a specific category" could be an argument, the purpose of this thread is to decide on that and clean-up after Foroa's solo attempt.

From my experience in categorizing numerous Navy images, using simply the name of the tank is to be most convenient way. -- User:Docu at 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed close: Kept There are two ways of looking at the category subject. Singular: the category subject is "the AMX-32" tank model design, illustrated with one or more images of "an AMX-32", a physical implementation of that design. Plural: the subject is AMX-32s, being the physical units which implement the AMX-32 model design. Without a clear category scheme, there is no way to decide this, since the plural and the singular are equally valid. Leaving it as it is saves work, of which we have enough. Since the change will bring little benefit to end users looking for media, this as good a way of deciding as any. Rd232 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC) ~~~~  Done Closed per proposal.

• Thanks for suggesting another solution. BTW, it's a category discussion, not a DR. --  Docu  at 07:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Template fixed. Now what? Rd232 (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Good question. If there is a consensus for your suggestion, maybe it will be implemented. --  Docu  at 12:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I substituted the template, just to make sure it wont keep changing. "template fixed" hardly describes adequately what you did diff. --  Docu  at 12:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Undone. I'll thank you for leaving my template alone, and for not reverting changes that were made in response to your remarks ("BTW, it's a category discussion, not a DR."). Can we start talking about the substance of the proposal yet? Rd232 (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Closed  Keep per proposed close of 5 December. If in future category naming policy or a category scheme suggests changing the name, this naming should be reviewed. Rd232 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gyeongbok Palace

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new request.

Category:PAETEC Park

The stadium is no longer called PAETEC Park. It was en:Marina Auto Stadium in 2009 but will likely have a new name next year. How should the category be titled? --Powers (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• All images seem to be of the period when it was called Paetec Park and we don't really know how it will be called next year. Thus there isn't really a reason to rename this. -- User:Docu at 08:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new request.

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Hovercrafts

Rename Category:Hovercrafts (talk) to Category:Hovercraft (76 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Hovercrafts;Hovercraft;r;

The correct English plural of "hovercraft" is "hovercraft" not "hovercrafts", and so this category should be renamed. --Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done -- User:Docu at 08:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:National Register of Historic Places on Saranac Lake, New York

Shouldn't this be Category:National Register of Historic Places in Saranac Lake, New York (in, not on)? Presumably it refers to the village of Saranac Lake, New York, not to the lake itself; some of these pictures are clearly not lakefront. Or maybe we need to sort out two categories. --Jmabel ! talk 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Lacking objection after several weeks, I took this to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. - Jmabel ! talk 06:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done. Closing thread. -- User:Docu at 16:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tree of Life (Disney)

All constituent images were deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Tree of Life (Disney). Any subsequent images would fall under the same deletion rationale. --Powers (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Category currently empty: tagging it for speedy deletion and closing this thread. -- User:Docu at 16:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Upstream fitness

This category appears to be promotional in nature. From what I can gather, it is a fitness system that is the sole invention of the category creator; the only mention I can find of it anywhere is on his personal web page ([2]). The category is populated with a mix of self-portraits of the author exercising, and images of Greek and Roman statues (purportedly representative of the fitness program's ideals). This editor previously attempted to create a self-promotional article on enwiki (en:Upstream fitness), and has inserted promotional links to his category page here on Wikipedias in a number of languages: pt, en, fr, sk, ru, and probably others. For reference, he is currently blocked indefinitely on both enwiki and dewiki. --TenOfAllTrades (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Closing thread. Please proceed according to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closing_issues_at_CfD.[3] Thanks. Best regards. -- User:Docu at 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Permalink: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 18#Closing_issues_at_CfD. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Drawing Rail

This category is redundant to the better named and pre-existing Category:Rail track schemata --Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Category (content) are not the same. Category:Drawing Rail: only sketch object, detail, one object. Category:Rail track schemata: schema junction, station, operational solutions ... --Hapesoft (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Diagrams of stations already have Category:Train station diagrams, and I'm not certain there is a need to make the distinction between diagrams of one object and multiple objects. Where would a diagram of one junction fit? Also many of the images in Category:Drawing Rail are also in Category:Rail track schemata. If there is a need to distinguish, then this category should be renamed as the current name suggests it should be a type of rail similar to bullhead rail and grooved rail. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Category:Train station diagrams and Category:Rail track schemata are almost identical (95%). --Hapesoft (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Closing discussion: category merged into Category:Rail track schemata. -- User:Docu at 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

U.S. Routes by state subcategories

At the moment, the subcategories of Category:U.S. Routes by state use several different naming conventions, none of which are 100% correct. The correct naming convention should be "U.S. Highways in <state>"; the capital "H" in Highway indicates that the category is for routes in the U.S. Highway System. "U.S. highways" is wrong because the lowercase "highway" is a generic term for a road, meaning that the category would implicitly and incorrectly refer to all U.S. roads within a state, and since the state is in the U.S. it would thus refer to all roads in the state.

I propose the following:

Rename all "U.S. highways in <state>" categories to "U.S. Highways in <state>"

Rename all "U.S. Routes in <state>" categories to "U.S. Highways in <state>"

Rename Category:U.S Routes in Idaho to Category:U.S. Highways in Idaho --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 08:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. Eminently reasonable standardization. Powers (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support per LtPowers. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. --Rschen7754 (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support renaming all to "U.S. Highways in <state>" Dough4872 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Closing thread. To rename the categories to "U.S. Highways in <state>", please make the corresponding rename requests at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. -- User:Docu at 14:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Úholičky (train station)

Reasons for discussion request

Myslím si, že by bylo vhodnější tuto kategorii přejmenovat buďto na Úholičky (železniční zastávka), nebo na Úholičky (train stop), jelikož železniční stanice má kolejové rozvětvení, což u Úholiček neplatí.

---

I think, that this category should be renamed either to Úholičky (železniční zastávka), or to Úholičky (train stop), since it isn't an actual station with rail junctions, but just a stop. --DavidSpanel (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. See Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/02/Categories of train stations in the Czech Republic.

The naming policy and the question of distinction between "zastávka" (train stop) and "nádraží" or "železniční stanice" (train station) were disputed. Two possibilities was proposed:

• var. 2.1: to make distinction ("Liberec, train station", "Všenory, train stop")
• var. 2.2: to use "train station" for both types ("Liberec, train station", "Všenory, train station")

Most users supported 2.2. Please see the reasons there. Btw., it is IMHO an Austro-Hungarian speciality that we have no unified word for both types. Btw 2- in most of countries, such terminology distinction doesn't exist. In addition, at metro and at funiculars in the Czech Republic, all stops are named "stanice". Until recently (early 70-s) bus and tram stops are named "stanice" officialy too. --ŠJů (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Closing thread. No consensus to rename. -- User:Docu at 05:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Zacatecas (municipality)

Category:Zacatecas (municipality) and Category:Zacatecas, Zacatecas mutually include each other. I suspect they are synonymous and should be merged. If there is a distinction, someone should make it clear what is the difference, and decide which category belongs inside the other. --Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Closing thread. I fixed it according the explanation given on en:Zacatecas, Zacatecas. -- User:Docu at 06:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen

Rename to what? --Hesperian 03:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen were without category and their pictures were being released in the categories art, design etc. Possible reasons: 1) The collective Drawers is simpler and more reasonable but is likely to be confused with (drawers = sliding boxes in a table etc). 2) draughtsmen and draftsmen are masculines (some women can even consider, with reason, such names as anti-feminist). Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen it is a category that was missing, it is a disambiguation and it is a way for the simplest word to establish itself with more intensity. (Google translator + little adaptations). Cordially,Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are afraid of being accused of sexism, you could rename it to Category:Draughtsmen and draughtswomen. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Twelve categories, nine pages and one hundred thirty-one images of 'desenhistas' (unisex Portuguese word for drawers, draughtsmen or draftsmen) were without their own category, equivalent to that of painters, illustrators, etc. Of these, seven are described as drawers, dozens as draughtsmen and and dozens as draftsmen. Among the drawers, four are men and three are women. Of these women, one created a category in which title is the word (drawer), thus, in parentheses. Cordially, Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the need for this category, but I agree with Hesperian that the title sounds a little strange. That's why I made the proposal above. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Draughtswomen be a neologism. Word not existent in dictionaries as the Webster, for example. And it would, it seems, a neologism less reasonable than, for example, tripsigraphs or tripsigraphies as synonyms for the, also problematic, English and French rubbing and frottage. (Google translator + little adaptations + eventual errors), Cordially, Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)- Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not afraid of being accused of sexism. I created the category because there are some subtle signs that some men and women non-US, the Commons is worldwide, do not like to define those that draw only as draughtsmen or draftsmen. (Google translator + little adaptations + eventual errors), Cordially,Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of such category? we already have Comic Artist (by country) categories? The exact label of categories is imo irrelevant. What is important is their description. not their exact spelling or formulation Esby (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Vincent van Gogh for example made drawings, but wasn't a comic artist. So a category drawers/draughtsmen/draftsmen/designers is necessary I think. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the point, still, The comic artist mother category should be categorized into this category, and no duplicate categorization should be performed... And, Imo, it should be renamed to Category:Drawing People with redirects created to it in Category:Draughtmen Category:Draftsmen Esby (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Draughtspersons? Hesperian 23:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking to Category:Drawers but it is already used for something else, so unless we rename the actual drawers category, we need to use something simple. Esby (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

After thinking, I'd rename the actual Category:Drawers to Category:Drawers (furniture) (or something similar) and I'd rename Category:Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen to Category:Drawers Esby (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 Support Yes, good idea, I'm all for it. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better, to leave category:drawers nonexistant, so nobody could accidentally add the wrong images to it. --Flominator (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Drawer Persons and Category:Drawer Furnitures ? Esby (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case I would chose Category:Drawers (artists) and Category:Drawers (furniture). I'm note sure, but I think the word furniture is always singular. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1 - Through no to have, before the category drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen, a category that would unite them, those that draw not are on the main page of Commons (with the architects, composers, sculptors, photographers, painters). 2 - In the English language exist and are used the three words (drawers, etc.). 3 - "Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen" is, unfortunately, a very long title. 4 - Suggestion: To maintain the category "Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen" and create a link "Drawers .." that under the mouse pointer would show the rest of the category name. 5 - To use this link "Drawers .." on pages where there was little space or aesthetic, and on the main page, where, where in disambiguation would be given its proximity to painters etc (to do justice to they that draw). (Google translator + little adaptations + eventual errors).Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact several terms exist for a concept does not mean the corresponding commons category must be using all of these terms. English Wikipedia (and other Wikipedias) choose the most used term when several ones exists. The other terms are just redirects. see en:Draughtsman and en:draftsperson for example... Esby (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I requested the move of categories on delinker. Internationalisation progress in title might allow what you want to do Paulo Cesare-1 in the future. Esby (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Category renamed to Category:Drawers (artists). Category:Drawers was renamed to Category:Drawers (furniture)Esby (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Closing thread: category has already been renamed. -- User:Docu at 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Apartment buildings vs. Apartment blocks

Category:Apartment buildings in Barcelona and Category:Apartment blocks in Barcelona.

As far as I can tell, these are synonymous, and we should merge them. I don't have any preference about which way we go, or even whether we establish uniformity across all geographical areas, but we should not have both of these for the same place. -- Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer the term Apartment building. An apartment block is for me a huge isolated building and is always an apartment building, which can be as well a smaller building in a city with several apartments. --anro (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Several weeks, no one else has weighed in. I have no objection to "Apartment buildings", but there is certainly no reason to have both. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Closing old thread. -- User:Docu at 06:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

open again. Templates are still in the cats. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Closing - Changing cat to "Apartment buildings in Barcelona" as there is no reason to have both, and I think that "buildings" is clear. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Fossil something

Long term difficult discussion. Follow the link: Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Fossils vs. Fossil vs. Extinct. --Snek01 (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

---

And we're supposed to follow that up here. :P As no one's replying here I'll close this up. If someone has more to add, the TOL talk page might be a better place for it. Rocket000 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Old hospitals

What are the criteria for inclusion in this category? Is it in any way distinct from Category:Former hospitals, or should it be merged? --Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment which one would you suggest? -- User:Docu at 12:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • My inclination is always get rid of highly subjective categories like this. I'd look through the content by hand and re-classify. But if someone had a meaningful definition for this, I'd be open to hearing about it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds ok. It would be nice to have categories for 17/18/19th century hospital buildings. -- User:Docu at 17:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    •  Delete Agree. Specific categories for hospitals by date per Docu sounds reasonable; "Old hospitals" is too vague to be of much use. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Closing thread. Media in the category should be categorized otherwise. -- User:Docu at 05:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
There are still three images there awaiting recategorization. - Jmabel ! talk 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Rails in art

• Comment: What about Category:Rail tracks in art? That would avoid ambiguity. Note that a rail is a type of bird, and could also be used to mean a handrail (though of course it's highly unlikely anyone would create artworks dealing with the latter). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (copied from here)

I agree to it. I additon, we should revolve, what indicia should be reasons for inclusion of some photo into this category. Does fall into it every photo made from bottom or unusual view? Or should be decisive some mood or feeling? --ŠJů (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we generally specify criteria for inclusion of images in "in art" categories? I thought this was generally left up to editors. Special types of photographs (e.g., black and white or sepia-toned) and rail tracks in media other than photographs (e.g., drawings and paintings) would be obvious candidates for this category, but I'm not sure if it is desirable or even possible to specify what sort of ordinary colour photographs of rail tracks should be placed there instead of in "Category:Rail tracks". By the way, the current images in "Category:Rails in art" are pretty "artistic". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would have expected sculptures made of rails or paintings. Multichill (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Category:Rail tracks in art", it is good name. Each object has two views: Material and Abstract. For selection photo is used filter: substandard view, color balance, level of detail, composition, mood and feeling of the image ... Hapesoft (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• No real strong opinion. The pictures I like the most show rails, not rail tracks. Not sure if the rails birds will cause problems as there many quite different types of rails. --Foroa (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Another reason why I thought Category:Rail tracks in art is a better name is because one of the main categories for Category:Rails in art is actually Category:Rail tracks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• The images in this category seem to be artistic photographs of rail tracks, and so Category:Rail tracks in art would seem to be a better name. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Foroa - rails are intended to be components of rail tracks, but many images display rails in some other place, e. g. in a store room, steel works, during transporation of material etc., or separately (in a book, drawing etc.). --ŠJů (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• To delete, because incorrect name of category. Files which contains this category are not artistic. Or are not sufficiently artistic. No mosaics, drawings, reliefs, paintings etc. --Starscream (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This category is not building architecture or artistic relief. Intended for "railwaymen". --Hapesoft (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Art" namely art! Rails possibly subject of mosaics, drawings, reliefs, paintings etc. Actually lack. --Starscream (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Every photo has own artistic aspect. The heart of the matter is how large artisticness substantiates such categorization. --ŠJů (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So categories with contains ...in art we must add to every files? --Starscream (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The heart of the matter is how large artisticness substantiates such categorization. We should revolve what indicia should be reasons for inclusion of some photo into this category. Do you understand the question? IMHO none of the contained photos meet my criteria but somebody can have some different opinion. Usually use to be categorized this way mainly older photos of well-known artistic photographers only. --ŠJů (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues emerging here:

1. The main issue is whether "Category:Rails in art" should be renamed "Category:Rail tracks in art". I think it should for the simple reason that the latter name is unambiguous. For the purpose of this discussion, I believe this is the only question that needs to be answered.
2. The subsidiary issue is whether there should be "in art" categories in the Commons in the first place, and if so, whether there should be criteria determining which images should be placed in such categories. This is a broad issue that needs more general discussion elsewhere, such as at the Village Pump. "In art" categories are common, and personally I think it would be extremely difficult to develop criteria for inclusion or exclusion. It would require an answer to the question "What is art?". I doubt if it will be possible to achieve consensus on the issue. It may be better to (or we may have no choice but to) let such categories remain, and leave it to the discretion of editors to decide what constitutes "art".

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ad 2), nobody impugned "in art" categories generally. With regard to depicted sculptures, reproduced paintings etc., we have no problem, independent of their artistic value. Only photographs are problematic. This category can remain tolerated. However, this is a typical case that gallery page would be more useful than a category. Gallery page is more suitable for aplying of subjective criteria as wall as for selecting of interesting images. --ŠJů (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem arises because most files in the Commons are in fact photographs, so there is the question of whether a particular photograph should go into main category for a topic (e.g., "Category:Rail tracks") or into the "in art" category ("Category:Rail tracks in art"). As a matter of principle there is no reason why photographs should be regarded as any less "artistic" than paintings and sculptures. Photography is a well established art form. Are you suggesting that in practice in the Commons only artworks other than photographs should be placed in "in art" categories, and that all photographs should be put in main categories? Perhaps it is worth raising the issue at the Village Pump. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think, placing into "in art category" should be "additional" in principle, it shouldn't preclude a categorization by location (if identificable), by type of depicted device (if it's specific) etc.

The common usage of "in art" categories is that they include subcategories by form: a photograph is generally conceived as a basic form of image, other forms as "special". "In art" categories are mostly used for grouping of special forms. If we should handle photographs similarly, we need to place all photographs into subcategories of Photographs by topic. We can see, only very few themes are represented here. Is it a good idea, to add millions of other images here? --ŠJů (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is no good reason to put a lot of images in "in art" categories rather than in the main categories dealing with the subjects of the images. But this is really not the right place for discussing what should be put into "in art" categories. I suggest that the matter be raised at the Village Pump. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

---

You are all getting side-tracked. There seems to be agreement that this should be renamed Category:Rail tracks in art. Can we close and move on that account? Ingolfson (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please. As I said, what should or should not be placed in "Foo in art" categories is a subject for discussion at a different forum, such as the Village Pump. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Moved to category:Rail tracks in art --Foroa (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Paintings by Hieronymus Bosch by location

and it's subcategories:

• Category:Paintings by Hieronymus Bosch in the Kunsthistorisches Museum
• Category:Paintings by Hieronymus Bosch in the Prado Museum
• Category:Paintings by Hieronymus Bosch in the Museum of Fine Arts (Ghent)

rason:

1. most museums own not more than one work by this painter
2. this category is in conflict with other subcategories in Category:Paintings by Jheronimus Bosch

--Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I do not see the conflict. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

when you put Category:Paintings by Hieronymus Bosch by location under Category:Paintings by Jheronimus Bosch (as it should be done) is causes an asymmetrical division between "just paintings" and "paintings by location", which I think is not desirable. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons has 362 categories in Category:Paintings by painter by museum - why should this one be a problem? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Of this painter only 30 paintings are known divided over 19 museums. When you sort these paintings by location you will end up having 15 categories containing only 1 or a few files. That's too much I think. To avoid this I think it's better to sort paintings in museums by school, for example Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum and Category:Early Netherlandish paintings in the Prado Museum. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete This seems not to be going anywhere. For some reason, Mattes who created the categories is not responding ... it would have been faster if you had marked the empty categories with {{Speedy}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Mosques in the Ottoman Empire

old category new category is Category:Ottoman mosques --Alexandre Vallaury (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose per naming conventions --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Kept, and deleted the new one, per naming conventions. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Illustrations of Trilobita

Category:Illustrations of Trilobita and all similar like this should be deleted also. For example every file in Category:Trilobita and in all of its subcategories are illustrations so the category Illustrations of Trilobita is an exact duplicate. Definition of an illustration from English wikipedia: "An illustration is a visualization such as a drawing, painting, photograph or other work of art that stresses subject more than form." See also Category talk:Illustrations. --Snek01 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why delete a category that (as a group) is sensible (even though the name may be misleading)? If anything, rename. 87.79.83.246 13:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the discussion states that "illustration" is correct, just like in your definition. The other categories would be "sound", "video" and "printed media". The last is ambiguous too. But it was said by a non-native speaker that "image" is just as confusing, if not more. "Drawing" is only partially correct, since "illustrations" contains drawings and paintings (but not video, sound or text). 87.79.83.246 13:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Category specifically for illustrations of Trilobites, ans with all other illustrations of categories.--Kevmin (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete, Commons is for media files, most of our content is illustrations, so indicating illustrations to the category is not helpful. I bet this category was meant for drawings to separate them from photos, or it was meant for illustrations scanned from books. Create a category with appropriate category name. --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

true in general however the majority of media in the category Trilobita is photographs, with few drawings, illustrations, painting etc. Thus the name of category, which conforms to the naming structure of the parent categories, eg Category:Zoological illustrations.--Kevmin (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Kept, category seems valid. Kameraad Pjotr 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Bazars of the Ottoman Empire

old category new category is Category:Ottoman bazars --Alexandre Vallaury (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose per naming conventions --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Kept, and deleted the new one, per naming conventions. Kameraad Pjotr 20:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Bridges in the Ottoman Empire

old category new category is Category:Ottoman bridges --Alexandre Vallaury (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose per naming conventions --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Kept, and deleted the new one, per naming conventions. Kameraad Pjotr 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Railway lines

• category:railway lines
• category:railway lines by country and all subcategories
• category:rail tracks by country and all subcategories

I supposed, category:railway lines is intended for images and files sorted by specific track line and country, while category:rail tracks for images sorted by type of technical element (points, sleepers, technical drawings of rails etc.). However, the meta-subcategory category:rail tracks by country and all its subcategories (and its current content) is mainly duplicite toward category:railway lines by country and splits the content needlessly. Some conceptual treatment is needed. Let's not neglect the distinction between (classical) railways and rail transport tracks generally (including trams, funiculars, rapid and city transport rail systems etc.) too. --ŠJů (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the content of

Category:Rail tracks in Switzerland

Category:Railway lines in Switzerland

I think the situation is quite o.k. like this: Detail photos of the track are in the first mentioned category, photos with landscape and/or trains in the second category. I don't think we should change this but it is necessary to regularly come back and sort out badly categorized photos. --Gürbetaler (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So, should we have separately categories of railway lines in global views and separately categories of detail images from railway lines? As I mentioned, detailed images of rail track components should have their own categories: points, sleepers, derails, overhead lines, cog-rails, railway signs and signals etc., by type of device. However, why we need categories category:rail tracks by country and its subcategories in paralell to category:railway lines by country? We can see examples what is (or was) included in the Category:Rail tracks in Switzerland:

I see no reason to divide such photos into two different and paralel categories accidentally. Even if your idea were good, the practical effect is and will be a chaos, duplicity and shattering. We should put them together, no matter if under the first name or under the second one. Eventual category for images of rail elements should be named quite otherwise, to not be confused with images of railway lines (tracks). --ŠJů (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but railway lines and rail tracks are two different things. Rail track is a detail of the physical plant like overhead line, points etc. and I see absolutely no reason to remove this category. Or how would you then call a category where I can find photos that show how track is constructed? Sure it is possible to put some photos in a more detailled category. Rail track is part of "Rail transport infrastructure" while railway lines aren't.--Gürbetaler (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we have in Czech a term "železniční trať". It can be traslated "rail track" or "railway line" (die Bahnstrecke or die Bahnlinie in German). It means a way for trains. Unfortunately, the category name "Rail tracks in Switzerland" associates this meaning primarily, synonymic to "Railway lines in Switzerland". For the second meaning of the English words "rail track", we have a word "kolej" in Czech (das Gleis in German). I suspect that English language can hardly differentiate this two meanings. We have "dvoukolejná trať" in Czech (or zweigleisige Strecke in German), but no "double-track track" in English - only "double-track" (= Zweistrecke?, dvojtrať?). Track which have two tracks. The English word "track" is ambiguous, compared to other languages. The category name should be unambiguous. (The word "rail" means rather "kolejnice" (Schiene) than "kolej" (Gleis).)

We can have a global view of some track/line (e. g. aerial view), we can have a detailed view (e. g. a commonly photo, ranging tens or hundreds metres or some few kilometres usually), we can have a more detalied view from the line (a point, a platform, a station, a sign along the track, a rail). Both the global and the detailed views belong to the identical and specific track(s)/line(s) allways. We can categorize them into subcategories by station or by section, we can categorize them in parallel by type of device (category of overhead lines, of cog-rails, sleepers etc.), but the category Category:Rail tracks in Switzerland itself is nothing but harmful duplicity of Category:Railway lines in Switzerland. It causes that unsorted photos of railways in Switzerland fall (accidentally) into two different categories, which isn't included one in the second even. Categories "railway lines in..." was always intended for photos of real parts and places of railway infrastructure, not (only) for some abstract and ideal lines. I wrote arguments and I gave examples that category name "Rail tracks in (country)" attracts such images which belong into category "Railway lines" (and its subcategories) primarily. If we should have in "rail tracks" every photo like this (no detailed photo of rails, but global view of railway station), we can place here 80 % of railway photos from Switzerland. What it makes sense? As I said already, an eventual category for images of rail track elements should be named quite otherwise, to not be confused with images of railway lines (tracks). "Rail track elements" would be a suitable name (per samples Architectural elements, Bridge details, Vehicle parts etc.). For images of rail track details, the unambiguous name can be "Details of rail tracks", "Types of rail tracks" etc. If you understand the problem, maybe you will come up with some better solutions. --ŠJů (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What we discuss here is a linguistic problem. Often, people who put photos in categories do not really understand the words. Hence we shouldn't rename categories but try to give useful translations. "Rail tracks" is the perfectly correct name for the category "Gleise" and "Railway lines" translates as "Eisenbahnstrecken". There is even a distinction in German between "Linie" and "Strecke" but unfortunately both translate as "line" in English...

And then, unfortunately, many uploaders do not really care about categorizing and I have corrected hundreds of category entries. Renaming "Rail tracks" doesn't resolve this problem. Unfortunately.--Gürbetaler (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

line = Strecke/Linie

track = Gleis

rail = Schiene

thus:

single track, double track = eingleisig, zweigleisig/doppelspurig

double track line = doppelspurige Strecke

Sure, naming of categories is a linguistic problem. That's why we need to keep from unfitted category names which cause that image files are disorganized. I have made clear that "rail tracks" isn't an unambiguous equivalent of "Gleise" but that this term have a meaning synonymic to "railway lines" too. That's why such categories attract many of images which belongs into category "Railway lines" (and its subcategories) primarily. Btw., as you noted, railway lines is ambiguous too, in English. In some regions, the Strecken-system of passenger transportation is or was changed to Line-system which means that one line (Linie) can use more "Strecken" and one "Strecke" can be used by more "Lines" (Linien). Hundred years ago, such trend changed a tram transport. But this ambiguity causes no serious problem yet, contrary to the previous one. This problem concerns tens of countries, category descriptions aren't able to reduce all disarray caused by unsuitable category names. --ŠJů (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, dear ŠJů, but you have a linguistic problem. Your interpretation of the term rail track is wrong. Please read en:Rail tracks.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I claim that categories "Railway lines..." are intended for photos of real parts and places of railway infrastructure, not (only) for some abstract and ideal lines. This meaning is practically identical with the definitiion of en:Rail tracks you linked. Hardly some photo displays a railway line but not a rail tracks, hardly som photo displays a rail tracks but not a railway line. Rail tracks are the main visible physical substance (not only an equipment) of every railway line. --ŠJů (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support the original proposal to merge the categories. Both are describing the same thing - all the images which are now categorised under "railway lines" also come within "rail track"; if there is a need for a category just showing close-up images of railway infrastructure, then it should be created for the infrastructure in question. There is no need for categories for every country and in fact it is more helpful from a categorisation point of view if each section of rail track (Linie) can be assigned to a particular route (Strecke), rather than being all put together as photos of lines (Gleise). Ravenseft (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you mix up the German terms. Eisenbahnlinie is not a synonym to the English word railway line. In terms of infrastructure we only speak about Eisenbahnstrecke and that would be Category:Railway lines which should be geographically divided. Ãnd the Category:Rail tracks should contain pictures that show details of rail tracks de:Gleis and these can be very different among several countries. If you put them all together in the same global category you will never again find anything. But building up specific sub-categories like Category:Gauntlet track or Category:Rack railway points is a good idea. But somebody would have to sort out several hundreds of pictures and have to find good enough sub-categories to avoid that one category has more than about one hundred pictures. Not an easy task!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, and we need to make sure that only de:Gleis are found in the Rail tracks category. The best way to do that would be to create sub-categories for the different infrastructure. Yes, this will not be an easy task, but it would be best to start now rather than allow more and more non-rail track images be put into this category. We don't need to divide between countries at the beginning and we don't need to sort everything straightaway, this can be done over time. In my categorisations for the UK, I have found not so many images which would come into this category. Ravenseft (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Given a category like Category:Midland Main Line, should there be a subcategory Category:Track of the Midland Main Line that includes any photo that shows the actual track? I don't see that it matters whether an image is close-up or not, if it shows a track it seems to be in scope for both the lines and tracks categories. Personally I don't think the two category trees are needed in practice: if you want to find photos of track, it's not hard to find them in the "lines" categories. If it's supposed to be easy to find particular types of track, it would be easier to create a category "Lines using track type X" and add the relevant lines categories to that (or entire country categories, if they all use the same type of track.) ghouston (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Comment. Hmmm, this is tricky. From a linguistic point of view, I agree that "railway lines" and "railway tracks" can refer to different things. "Tracks" mean the actual structures upon which the trains run, while "lines" can either be used as a synonym for "tracks" or to mean entire stretches of tracks. If both categories are to be retained, I would suggest that "Railway tracks" be used for photographs of the structures, while "Railway lines" be used only as a meta category containing sub-categories relating to named rail services from point to point. For example, sub-categories of "Railway lines in Ruritania" could be "Ruritania Main Line" and "Dinetobrivsk–Syldania Line". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

---

There is no consensus for any deletions. It seems, reading through this, that the option that has the most traction is sorting miscategorized files into the correct places, rather than doing away with a category family. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)