Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 June 2010

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:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted

[edit]

Useless category that is not within the Commons project scope. A category in which penis photographs of Commons users are grouped do not even meet the criteria of COM:CAT. By the way, this deletion request includes the categorized categories there, too: namely: Human anatomy, set of subject 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07. --132.199.211.5 22:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep

1. re: scope: anyone with any knowledge of anatomy, medicine, or simply efficient cataloging of information should not have trouble understanding the logic of grouping photosets of anatomy images of the same person together. when we have a set of images of the same subject, it makes sense to group them together. since the media-wiki tools for organizing information are miserably limited, & since categories are effectively the default scheme of organization @ wmc, categories seem to be the best way of doing this..

2. the purpose of the category is not to collect genitalia images, it is intended for any photosets of the same anatomical subject. any & all such sets belong in the category; currently it happens to contain mostly genital images, because that's what i've been sorting; i've been focussing on organizing that material first, because there aren't as many users dedicated to deleting images of feets, hands, internal organs, etc.

3. commons is not censored.

4, the naming-scheme is provisional; i'm open to improvements. actively looking for a better system; usernames don't work, so...?

5. the nominator is an an anonymous IP account, whose only contributions to commons are deletion noms, who clearly has knowledge of commons procedures & who has turned up after a 6-month absence, apparently for no other reason than to nominate this category for deletion. seems like we've got a number of accounts being used in this way; i've come across several. possible sockpuppeting?

(also, the nominator did not show the courtesy of adding a notification to my talkpage, as creator of the cat.)

Lx 121 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Lx 121. Kameraad Pjotr 16:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mountains of Kent

[edit]

Reasons for discussion request - There are no mountains in Kent, United Kingdom (a mountain being over 2,000 ft above mean sea level). Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We created a lot of categories for the Geograph upload. Some of these categories might not make any sense. I moved the 2 images to Category:Hills of Kent and deleted this category. Multichill (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Formula One circuits in Germany

[edit]

Unnecessary, empty category. Formula One circuits are not subcategorised by country - they are all just included directly in Category:Formula One circuits. --121.45.111.217 01:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 08:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Infrared photographs of flags of the United States

[edit]

Too narrow intersection, suggesting that the category be deleted. Currently contains only a single file. —Quibik (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category, sometimes, are made even to be filled. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no new entries. Deleted category, moved this single photo to a proper category --Leafnode✉ 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Animals at the Philadelphia Zoo

[edit]

This category has been created a few days or weeks ago. If it is a legitimate category, all animals from Category:Philadelphia Zoo must be moved into it. As a subcategory of Category:Animals in zoos it sounds legitimate. But are the contents of a Zoo category going to include many things apart from animals ? And if this Zoo category is organized this way, then this should apply to all Zoo categories (Category:Zoos by country mentions 81 countries with at least one zoo, with some countries having 20 or 30 zoos) and that makes a lot of work I am afraid. I have no idea what is the best thing to do. Teofilo (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • FWIW, Category:Woodland Park Zoo has an entire subcategory for a carousel and also includes some pictures of plants and a few that are focused mainly on humans. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful category. There are 20 other "Animals at [zoo]" categories. Why did you single this one out? The parent category of a zoo should also (ultimately) contain photographs of zoo buildings, zoo grounds, zoo personnel... I count over a dozen pictures at present in Category:Philadelphia Zoo that are not of animals. The photos of animals at the zoo are typically more informative of those animals than of the zoo itself and so should be segregated. Whether or not it takes work to maintain this (and to move already uploaded pictures over) is really beside the point if it's a useful division.
  • However, I see a problem with intersecting individual animal species with zoo categories, such as the Category:Ursus maritimus in Philadelphia Zoo that you created. The result will be a lot of sparsely populated categories in both the zoo and the species parent categories, which will only hinder navigation of both. I could see one general subcategory for a species in zoos to separate them from photos taken in the wild, but which zoo the individual animal is found at is not going to have much bearing on what information the picture displays. So I think the best balance would be to keep the categories more general, such as Category:Mammals at the Philadelphia Zoo and Category:Ursus maritimus in zoos. Postdlf (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20 is not enough. There are more than 200 Zoos represented at Wikimedia Commons with many animals in them. 20 zoos is not representative of the collections of Wikimedia Commons which are much bigger than this. Either someone has the courage to create the 200-20 = 180 or so categories which still need to be created, or we remove these 20 categories. Teofilo (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Postdlf that such categories are sometimes useful. However, for zoos for which we only have pictures of animals, it's probably unnecessary to create a superfluous extra level of category. We can always recat later with a bot. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. In addition to photographs of animals, there may be photographs of flora and other attractions and amenities in zoos. It makes sense to have a category called "Animals at the XYZ Zoo" to segregate photographs of animals from such other photographs. (I should mention that I am not generally in favour of Postdlf's suggestion regarding keeping animal categories on zoo pages broad. I think this requires further discussion, and this may not be the right forum for it.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense to have a category called "Animals at the XYZ Zoo" with only 20 zoos in category:Animals in zoos ? While more than 200 zoos are actually represented at Wikimedia Commons ? Isn't that a misrepresentation of the collections at Wikimedia Commons ? Teofilo (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two thoughts:
  • While it is desirable to aim towards perfect consistency in all category structures, this is not achievable in the short term (or ever) as Commons is a work in progress. We have no choice but to tolerate differences. It doesn't have to be a matter of either "all 200 zoo categories must have an 'Animals in the XYZ Zoo' subcategory so we must create them now" or "we must delete all 'Animals in the XYZ Zoo' subcategories since other zoo categories don't have them".
  • If we accept that "Animals in the XYZ Zoo" subcategories are appropriate where there are a lot of images relating to a particular zoo and they are mixed up with images that are not of animals, why shouldn't a proper category structure be created to accommodate future growth even if there aren't many photographs in a particular zoo category at the moment? Taking Jmabel's example, if the subcategory "Houses in XYZ city" has already been created, why shouldn't "Houses in ABC city" also be created? Why differentiate between the two categories simply because there are fewer pictures of houses of ABC city than XYZ city? Having varying standards for different categories may confuse users who cannot see the logic behind the difference. Also, if we eliminate subcategories like "Animals at the XYZ Zoo", then it is sending a message to users that such subcategories are not at all desirable. By keeping them, it indicates that users may create such subcategories where appropriate.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Category:Animals in zoos by zoo name, adding

Notice As of June 2010, this category contains only the animals in a few zoos. Many more animal-in-zoo-pictures can be found under Category:Zoos by country.

I hope this solution can satisfy most of the points of views expressed in this talk. Teofilo (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable solution. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept the category. There are still a lot of images to be moved, but that can be done without further discussion. --rimshottalk 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Vatican City

[edit]

Vatican, the Vatican, Vatican City, or the Vatican City?

[edit]

Talks moved here from User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands --Teofilo (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that the form "Vatican City" is more correct than the simple form "Vatican". Vatican is a palace; Vatican City is a State. So:
Rename Category:Coats of arms of the Vatican to Category:Coats of arms of Vatican City (0 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.
Rename Category:Flags of the Vatican to Category:Flags of Vatican City (0 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.
Rename Category:Photographs of flags of the Vatican to Category:Photographs of flags of Vatican City (0 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.
Rename Category:Horses of the Vatican to Category:Horses of Vatican City (0 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.
Rename Category:Money of the Vatican to Category:Money of Vatican City (0 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.
Rename Category:Coins of the Vatican to Category:Coins of Vatican City (0 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.
Rename Category:Museums in the Vatican to Category:Museums in Vatican City (0 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.
Rename Category:People of the Vatican to Category:People of Vatican City (0 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.
Rename Category:Post of Vatican to Category:Post of Vatican City (0 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.
Rename Category:Stamps of Vatican to Category:Stamps of Vatican City (0 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.
Rename Category:Night in Vatican city to Category:Night in Vatican City (0 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.
  • Last but not least, I ask at all: which is the better form, "Vatican City" or "the Vatican City" ? For coherence with the other countries, I prefer the form "Vatican City" (without "the"), but the most part of our categories are in the form "the Vatican City".  : - (

Thank you at all ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Losing any extra "the" would be my preference. Ingolfson (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of "the Vatican City" in full, with "the". This is because we always use "the" for countries whose country name includes "the" on Commons : "of the United States", "of the United Kingdom", "of the Netherlands", and so on. Of course we never use "the" for countries whose names do no include "the" like "France", "Germany" (because people never say "the France" or "the Germany" which would be English language mistakes). Teofilo (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most part of countries are without "the". Look e.g. at here. We have countries which are formed by more States, so we have "the United States", "the Soviet Union", "the United Kingdom", "the United Arab Emirates", or "the Netherlands" (= the low lands) (but, as incoherence, we have not "the Switzerland" or "the Germany"), or we have some islands-countries ("the Cayman Islands", "the Virgin Islands", etc.). So I think that it is only a problem of singular or plural States. The "Vatican City" is only a city. So I prefer the simple form "Vatican City" and not "the Vatican City". --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no "The Germany" or "The Spain" and so on, we should forget about "The Vatican". Vatican is also wrong, the correct English name is w:Vatican City. Actually, it's called Stato della Città del Vaticano, should we use the English name or the original (Italian) name? To be accurate, the English language name should be State of the City of Vatican City. For me, Vatican City is fine for now. It really gets complicated if you look at w:Holy See v. Stato della Città del Vaticano in terms of sovereignty/souvereign but I don't want to get into this now ... Thanks for the proposal --Mattes (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The United Kindom" is singular. "The Czech Republic" is singular. Teofilo (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"United Kingdom" is formed by England and Scotland (there was two kingdoms once). "The Czech Republic" for me is wrong: why not "The Italian Republic" or "The France Republic"? --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"<something> of the Czech Republic" and "<something> in the Czech Republic" are widely accepted category names on Wikimedia Commons. Teofilo (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO I think that's not a good idea to put in our categories the kind of government in the different countries. Italy, France, Germany was a kingdom, now they are a republic; Sweden, Norway, Nederlands, Luxembourg, are kingdoms, but we don't say "Kingdom of...", we say only Sweden, Norway, Nederlands, and Luxembourg. "United Kingdom" it's now a name, but it was a historical event; I can imagine that, if in the future it will become a republic, we will say "Republic of the United Kingdom", why not? But I think that for our categories it's not necessary and it's not good to put the kind of government. They can change, and so we change every time our categories? To be simple is the best way: Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, etc. Will we let some exceptions for the Czech Republic or for the Congo? No problem! Let we this countries so. But for the others, please don't complicate the situations! In this way I prefer "Vatican City" and not "the Vatican City". Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Vatican isn't a palace: it's the name of a hill (not one of the seven, it is on the right bank of the Tiber). Is think it is better of "the Vatican City". Or if you want to use the original "Status civitatis vaticanenis". I see that in English is used the article with those nations which have in their name a generic substantive (kingdom, lands, republic, states, island). Here we have "city": the city of London. --Carlomorino (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ok. The situation is clear. The correct form is "the Vatican City". I will request to move 47 categories of the Category:Vatican City in this form. --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Rename to "XXX of the Vatican City". Rename processed 04 August 2010 by Foroa (talk · contribs). AusTerrapin (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Brussels metro

[edit]

Back in Oct 2009, a user created this category, as a supercategory of the existing Category:Metro of Brussels -- but didn't give any explanation of why. I don't understand what the intended distinction is, and there are only three images currently in the category, so I think this should be deleted, and the images moved to the existing category. Sorry if this doesn't require the formality of CfD. --JesseW (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Metro categories I found that the standard is to name it (just a few examples) Saint Petersburg Metro, Prague Metro, Paris metro (and Paris RER), Munich U-Bahn, Lille Metro etc. Thus I think it would be better to keep Category:Brussels metro rather than Category:Metro of Brussels-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but we certainly should't have both. I'm convinced by your reasoning; I've added a note to the other category that we are now discussing renaming Category:Metro of Brussels to Category:Brussels metro . JesseW (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree-- Gürbetaler (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. For what it's worth, I see that English Wikipedia locates the article at "Brussels metro" and has a redirect in place at "Metro of Brussels". I suspect this came about because the Dutch term is Brusselse metro, while the French term is Métro de Bruxelles. But I think "Brussels Metro" makes more sense in English that "Metro of Brussels". cmadler (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Brussels metro is better. --Elekhh (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody agrees so the move should be done now!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done already in December. --rimshottalk 22:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Human beings, by chronological age

[edit]

I'd like to bring to your attention a string of recently created categories, mainly related to Anatomy, which have the doubtlessly laudable aim of separating humans from animals. As far as I can see these are mainly the work of a single contributor, Lx 121. I have several concerns, including:

  • Such a far-reaching recategorisation would be better discussed and agreed upon first, then a bot could do most of the work. I've seen a number of well-meaning personal projects such as this abandoned before completion which leaves us with yet another mess to clear up.
  • The names given to some of these categories are not always helpful. In particular, the unneccessary use of the comma, e.g. Category:Human anatomy, by chronological age, which contains sub-cats such as Category:Human anatomy, by chronological age, by component and Category:Human anatomy, 10 year old, male. Who on earth is going to remember that, even if they spend a fair amount of time on these categories? (Which I don't, as a rule).
  • The (potential) extent of these sub-cats if/when applied to related categories, such as Art, will increase the burden on editors and severely tax their patience.

I'm sure that the intention is good but am concerned - as a mere amateur who occasionally strays into these areas, mainly because I have an interest in art - that the task of finding suitable categories will become impossibly difficult with the result that many people simply won't bother. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related categories, tagged:

More to be added later but this is enough to be going on. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, which I somehow missed. A real "gem":
Contains subcategories, unfortunately! Anatiomaros (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

with respect: i don't care what naming style is used, as long as it it clear, specific (disambitugated), & searchable

the "naming conventions" in place @ wmc currently are: a) chaotic c) NOT being implemented in any coherent, systematic manner & b) inadequate for organizing our database.

as for the specificity of categories; commons is a media repository, i.e.: a catalogue of files.

not a gallery

not a "picture album"

to properly serve the project's intended purpose, we NEED to have our file sorted as precisely as posssible, & covering as comprehensive a range of topics (as per scope) as possible.

(written in haste, i'm on vacation right now, will write more/better, when i'm back @ commons with more time availlable)

Lx 121 (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • These categories (or similarly named ones) have come up in other discussions. I only see Lx 121, the creator, defending them. The naming of them is terrible and follows no established conventions. They just seem like a bunch of nouns and adjectives separated by commas. They're not even consistent between themselves: "Human anatomy, 10 year old, male", "Human anatomy, male, age 19", "Human anatomy, preadolescent, male"??? Seriously, why "Male human genitalia, by component: scrotum and testes" when it could be something like "Human scrotum and testes"? It's not just the names, some of these categories are way too narrow and are over-categorization. They were created without consensus, so the best thing is too simply put them in more appropriate categories, rename any worth keeping (which seems to be happening). Lx, as a friendly suggestion, I think you should consider working on some galleries instead. They seem more suited to the very specific organization you're aiming for. For example, you can create a page for some body part and organize it in countless ways. we NEED to have our file sorted as precisely as posssible No, we don't. We should have our files sorted to a level that makes sense. We could create a separate category for each image if we really wanted to be as precise as possible. Rocket000 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree absolutely with all these comments by Rocket000. With all due respect to Lx 121, if we were to adopt similar category names right across Commons we would end up with such monstrosities as "Bridgend, County Council; rivers of" and "American, male, human, adolescent (12-17), Caucasian (white), by state". Category names should be as simple as possible and make grammatical sense. I'm not sure if there are other similarily named categories still lurking in Anatomy and other categories as I gave up on trying to find them, but if there are they should be deleted, in my humble opinion. Anatiomaros (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anatiomaros and Rocket000 in any points. Another problem is, that Lx 121 has apparently no academic knowledge of human anatomy and the result of it are useless categories like his comma-creations without - mostly - encyclopedic value. Nevertheless he keeps on understanding himself as the expert in these fields and he is willing to defend his "creations" quite aggressively - unfortunately. I support the deletion of these categories: "Category:Human anatomy, preadolescent, male" and "Category:Human anatomy, adolescent, male". --High Contrast (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you High Contrast. About time they went. I've just found another one which I've added above. These names are farcical and make a mockery of Commons. Anatiomaros (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another classic: Category:Human nudity (has been redirected to Category:Nudity). Naked animals! What next? Anatiomaros (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with anatomy, but is a good example of the absurd and totally impracticable category names created by Lx 121. Thankfully it is only a red link to several files at the moment, but we may well soon be treated with this monster: 'Category:Hayami Shungyōsai (速水春暁斎, Japanese, *1767, †1823)'. For God's sake, what is wrong with using the simple and obvious 'Category:Hayami Shungyōsai', which already exists, as you can see? Maybe the intention is to redirect that to his intended new category? One has to wonder just what logic is at work here and how much more of this we will have to suffer. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. That's all can I do is laugh, otherwise I'll cry. Rocket000 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another fun one: Category:Japanese "encyclopedia" of 1792 (proper title unknown/pending identification), scan set of the book (W-uk/bk-01). Rocket000 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Catchy! Clear, precise and easy to find and remember (Not!). As you say, it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry! Anatiomaros (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a category name includes typos and other mistakes seems to mean nothing either. For instance, Category:Ryūtei Tanehiko（柳亭種彦), which I've just redirected to Category:Ryūtei Tanehiko (after creating it). Anatiomaros (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More fun to come: Category:Ukiyo-e calendar 2010, bought at Daiso chain store in Japan, image set of object ([1]). Anatiomaros (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and recategorized the files in the "by stage of development" categories. I left the "by subject-person depicted" ones for now due to this DR (but there was also this), but I still don't think we should have categories that group together certain body parts of Commons users... There's also Category:Human anatomy, by gender, which doesn't warrant a separate category from the main category I don't think (there's only so many genders, and "gender" vs "sex" is good to avoid when talking biology), and other "comma-creations" that aren't listed above so I'll leave this DR open. Rocket000 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this, Rocket000. I hadn't realised that 'Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted' was subject of another DR. Still think the name sucks, whatever the arguments for or against the category. It seems to have been populated mainly by Lx 121 and includes 'Category:Human anatomy, set of subject 11', created by him and now containing only a single file (there was originally 2, but that still doesn't make for much of a "set"). Totally agree with you that the "by gender" cat is pointless (as well as irritating because of the superfluous comma!). Anatiomaros (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, as impractical. Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted, was subject of a deletion request and kept. To discuss it, open a new request. --rimshottalk 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Events in East Germany

[edit]

All categories of events in East Germany were requested to be moved to Events of German Democratic Republic at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. I added them to the commands list but then realised it could have been controversial, after looking at the Wikipedia article and the discussion page. By the time I got back it was too late to revert so I went with the move. All other categories are under Category:German Democratic Republic so this might not be controversial after all, but some second opinions would be appreciated. --ZooFari 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason for controversy here. Although widely referred to as 'East Germany' the polity's official name was GDR/DDR, and besides, a change for this category would then involve changing all the other related categories as well. Why do that for no good reason? If 'East Germany' had been a recognised historical region of Germany (prior to the end of WWII) there might be an argument for it, but it's simply a term used in the West for the DDR. Does politics come into this, perhaps? Anyway, I don't think we have any reason to change our categories. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, German Democratic Republic is the correct name. --rimshottalk 18:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Comet McNaught

[edit]

There are more than 40 comets called "Comet McNaught" (see w:Comet McNaught (disambiguation)), and at least two of them now have images here on Commons. Therefore, I propose that each should be listed under its correct designation ("Category:C/2006 P1" in this case; see w:Astronomical naming conventions#Comets), each of which could be a subcategory of "Category:Comet McNaught", which would then get an explanation about the names. So, what I am proposing is 1. Create "Category:C/2006 P1" as a subcategory of "Category:Comet McNaught"; 2. Move all current members of "Category:Comet McNaught" to the new "Category:C/2006 P1"; 3. Create a new category for C/2009 R1 (and any other comets of this name for which we get images) as a subcategory of "Category:Comet McNaught"; 4. Leave a note at "Category:Comet McNaught" explaining that there are many comets of that name, and media files should be classified according to the specific comet. Does that make sense? If there's an easier/simpler way to do this, I'm open to other suggestions. --cmadler (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a similar suggestion on English Wikipedia at w:Talk:Comet McNaught#Article title/disambiguation. cmadler (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have picture of any other than C/2006 P1 ? -- User:Docu at 18:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far, just File:C2009 r1 mcnaught 9 6 10.jpg, which is currently unclassified within Category:Comets. There are additional appropriately-licensed images available (e.g. [2]), but I'm loath to add them until this is fixed. Also, after the article name issue is resolved on English Wikipedia I'm going to go hunting for more images of the various comets of this name for use in articles there, and since NASA images are public domain, I'd be surprised if I didn't find some. cmadler (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok for me, though I probably would have chosen "Comet McNaught (C/2006 P1)" as title. -- User:Docu at 13:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The keys are that the name for each comet should use the same format and should be or include the name per the astronomical naming conventions. So either "C/2006 P1" or "Comet McNaught (C/2006 P1)" are fine; I'd prefer the former in the interest of brevity, but I'd have no great objection to the latter. cmadler (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you pick one, you might still want to add a redirect from the other (and from what other Wikis are using). BTW, it might be more explicit to use "Comet C/2006 P1" instead of just "C/2006 P1". -- User:Docu at 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created Category:C/2009 R1 (as a subcategory of "Comets") to start adding more images to, since the English Wikipedia article was on the Main Page (in "Did you know..."). But "Comet McNaught" still needs to be vacated (images moved to "C/2006 P1" or some variant) so it can be a supercategory for the different comets that share this name. cmadler (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as super-category, with single comets as sub-categories. --rimshottalk 07:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Categories by place or year of construction

[edit]

I doubt that these category names are meaningful in English. I propose to rename them.

--ŠJů (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC), corrected by discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Buildings by year of completion, Category:Buildings by date of destruction, Category:Railway stations by year of establishment, Category:Railway stations by year of closure, Category:Hormones by place of production, Category:Medieval manuscripts by place of creation, Category:Illuminated manuscripts by place of creation, Category:Immigrants by country of origin as anologous examples. --ŠJů (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider what word is most suitable for vehicles: construction? fabrication? manufacture? production? making? erection? fitting up? mounting? expedition? --ŠJů (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Construction" it is like "design", "engineering". Bus designed in one year is "built", "manufactured" etc. many years. It is bad word. Category like"Buses in Poland built by year" is good, becouse it is category 1) "by place" and next 2) "by year built" (not in this place). It is subcategory "Buses by place" (country) and "Buses built by year" (built = "produced"). For example buses built in 2009 year is thousands. It is too many. This category needs subcategory - "by country" (place). Maybe we need too category "Buses by country built by year" for categorys like: "Buses in Poland built by year", "Buses in Hungary built by year". Category "Buses built in Bulgaria by year of construction" is bad. Words "built" and "construction" is the same! Category "Buses built in Bulgaria by year" etc. is good. But it is category 1) "by year built" (produced) in Bulgaria, not "by place" where buses are. This is new and different category! Marek Banach (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not very good in English, but English grammar isn't quite strange or incomprehensible to us. Some bus can be built "in year", but not "built by year". Buses are sorted and categorized "by year", not "built by year". Just like you can write "Autobusy wyprodukowane w 2000 roku" but not "Autobusy wyprodukowane według roku" - rather "Autobusy według roku produkcji". As regards syntax, English is very similar to Czech or Polish.
"By year of building" or "by country of building" (which is the right grammatical form) is also a possible variant, but the word "building" is homonymous (the basic meaning here is budynek, budowla) and it wouldn't good to use it unnecessarily in more meanings. --ŠJů (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the proposals. It should make it clearer and more easy to understand. I think, in terms of buses "by year of manufacture" is the most appropriate word, rather than "production". Although "production" is OK too. Arriva436talk/contribs 20:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed since it looks like the changes have already been made. ghouston (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Technical diagrams

[edit]
Technical diagram example
Technical drawing example
Technical illustration example
English: Suggested description - please improve this: technical diagrams contains media that do not clearly fit in either Category:Technical drawings or Category:Technical illustrations. Consider moving an image to Category:Technical drawings if the image contains a Technical drawing, possibly with measurements, of a model sufficiently accurate to be transformed into a physical object. Consider moving an image to Category:Technical illustrations if the image appears to be a Technical illustration, accurate in terms of dimensions and proportions, that visually communicates information of a technical nature.
English: Please provide a "short description text that explains what should be in the category." What is the difference between a technical diagram and a technical illustration? See also Help:Category. Categories that need clearer inclusion criteria are: Category:Technical illustrations, Category:Technical diagrams and Category:Technical drawings (this last one does give an informative notice and an example, although several of the included media do not really fit).
--84user (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user who created the category wasn't active recently. Can you suggest one?  Docu  at 11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reluctant to suggest one because the distinction is not at all clear to me, but I have added a suggested description as a start, vague though it is. I have copied it above. Examples of each kind of "drawing" might help. I suspect this category is a catch-all or miscellaneous category, as there seems no clear criteria. An alternative might be to merge this category up to its parent Category:Diagrams. From there the images could be further categorised into clearer categories such as "graph-based", "chart-like", "cut-away", "exploded" and so on. -84user (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This never took off, and there's no clear path to proceede down here, certainly not one with consensus behind it. No action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2010/06&oldid=126269372"