Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2011/03
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 March 2011
User:Vizu has moved Category:Pahonia to Category:Pogonja on his own, without submitting verified sources that state Pahonia is written Pogonja in English. Pahonia is written in Belarusian Latin alphabet and Pogonja is an original researched transliteration of Russian variant of the word. As long as Pahonia is a Belarusian phenomenon in a large measure, and as long as there is no other vairant of writing Pahonia in English (except Polish Pogoń and Lithuanian Vytis, which are irrelevant as for this category), the category should be named after Belarusian variant. There is a lot of uses of Pahonia in relevant English-written publications:
- Symbolism of money: finances and historical consciousness of Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus // «Political Sphere» №11, 2008 (pdf);
- Three states, one common past: chance or malediction? The role of history and historiography in the formation of collective identities and mutual relations in Belarus, Lithuania and Poland (pdf)
- National symbols under German occupation during World War II (pdf)
- Sultanism in Eastern Europe // Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 3 (May, 2000), pp. 523-547 (pdf)
- Fearon and Laitin, Lithuania Narrative (Stanford University, pdf)* A Critical Analysis of the Belarusian Regime Types: 1991-1997 (Uppsala University, pdf)
- Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity // EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 55, No. 8, December 2003, 1241–1272 (pdf)
- HISTORY, MEMORY AND NATION BUILDING IN THE POST-SOVIET COLONIAL SPACE // Nationalities Papers, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2002 (pdf)
- Youth Movements in Post-Communist Societies: A Model of Nonviolent Resistance (Stanford University, pdf, pdf)
- “Close to the Eagle sign of Pahonia…” (pdf)
- FOUR EMPIRES AND AN ENLGARGEMENT. States, Societies and Individuals in Central and Eastern Europe. Edited by Daniel Brett, Claire Jarvis, Irina Marin (pdf)
- The History of the Belarusian Nation and State. — Minsk: «Belaruski khihazbor», 2001
- Historical Dictionary of Belarus. — Lamham. — London: Scarecrow Press, 1998.— 338 p. ISBN 0-8108-3449-9.
If Pogonja is a marginal variant, then it shouldn't be used in category name.
--Wizardist (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I should add that according to the Language policy, category names are written in English. Pogonja is not an English variant, it's just a transliterated Russian form. Pahonia, on the other hand, is widely used in English texts. Wizardist (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Support restoring of the original category name. English names for categories should be used according Language policy, Pahonia is the name variant which is used in English (supporting by the sources mentioned above), this name is also used in the English Wikipedia, but Pogonja is a transliteration from the Russian name which could be hardly found in the English-language sources. Therefore I support renaming of Category:Pogonja back to Category:Pahonia. —zedlik (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)- Support Wizardist, zedlik. So when category will be returned the normal name, which was changed without any discussion? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Category:Pahonia. Pahonia is transliteration of the Belarusan word Пагоня into English language. --Renessaince (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Pahonia is the only correct translation. --Dymitr (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support My voice for Pahonia --McDucker (talk) 9:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support My voice for Pahonia --Vaukalaka (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Conclusion: okay, as no other point of view has been presented during two months (while two weeks is a usual period), the category will be renamed back to Pahonia. Wizardist (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It should merge with "Reptile distribution maps" Miguel Sierra (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't exercise due diligence in looking for a category for these maps. Since they actually should all be in Category:Squamata distribution maps, I'll go ahead and move them there and we can just redirect this category to Category:Reptile distribution maps. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Done long ago. --rimshottalk 22:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This should be deleted as it could (and did) contain images from the various places called Moira - particularly those in England and Northern Ireland. S a g a C i t y (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Done Disambiguated. --Foroa (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Use new category: Buddhist ordination Octahedron80 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done {{Category redirect|Buddhist ordination}}. --Foroa (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
|
This is an empty category that duplicates Category:Himyarite Kingdom. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Himyarite Kingdom.--rimshottalk 22:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Some images appear to have copyrighted artwork with no evidence of a free license 84user (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- In any case, we would still need a category for the others. Please use DR for specific files instead. BTW, some may be covered by FOP. -- Docu at 02:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept, as this isn't a CfD issue. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
wrong category, 100% unwanted Artur Andrzej (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. Why is it a wrong category and 100% unwanted? In my opinion it is better categorization than putting all Strongmen in Strength athletes, since not only Strongmen are Strength athletes. Strength athletes should contain Powerlifters, Olympic Weightlifters, Strongmen, Highlanders, Grip athletes and other strength related athletes which cannot be put into one of these categories. I don't understand why a more acurate categorization is unwanted. Greetings Stats (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- If kept, this should be moved to "Strongmen from the United_States". --rimshottalk 22:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty category. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
wron category, 100% unwanted Artur Andrzej (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. Why is it a wrong category and 100% unwanted? In my opinion it is better categorization than putting all Strongmen in Strength athletes, since not only Strongmen are Strength athletes. Strength athletes should contain Powerlifters, Olympic Weightlifters, Strongmen, Highlanders, Grip athletes and other strength related athletes which cannot be put into one of these categories. I don't understand why a more acurate categorization is unwanted. Greetings Stats (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty category. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
wrong category, 100% unwanted !!!!!!! Artur Andrzej (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. Why is it a wrong category and 100% unwanted? In my opinion it is better categorization than putting all Strongmen in Strength athletes, since not only Strongmen are Strength athletes. Strength athletes should contain Powerlifters, Olympic Weightlifters, Strongmen, Highlanders, Grip athletes and other strength related athletes which cannot be put into one of these categories. I don't understand why a more acurate categorization is unwanted. Greetings Stats (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty category. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
this category is duplicated (see cat "Torres") and should be deleted tetraktys (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, as unlikely search term. Such obvious requests may be {{Speedy}}'d. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Inappropriate category. It rather not within the prject scope because the European Union is no geographical unit. Category:Frozen rivers in Europe would be much more appropriate. Consider that the European Union has territory outside of european continent. 80.187.106.21 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment -- Prior to today there was Category:Frozen rivers, and Category:Frozen rivers of Finland. I started Category:Frozen rivers by country, Category:Frozen rivers of Canada, Category:Frozen rivers of Sweden, Category:Frozen rivers of the United Kingdom and Category:Frozen rivers of the United States. Images of frozen European rivers were complicated. They cross borders. I thought it would be hard to determine what country some of the images were actually in.
I know the EU is not exactly a country.
I am not strongly attached to this organization, but I suggest Category:Frozen rivers should be emptied. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Definately, the EU is not a country. And this cat is not quite good. I suggest to start a parallel category tree like Category:Frozen rivers by continent and of course a Category:Frozen rivers by country tree - that was created recently. Do you agree? --High Contrast (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Most images are localised in one country. Cats for EU are not compatible, per continent is overcat. --Foroa (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- per continent is overcat? --High Contrast (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- It depends how you look at it, but most by continent cats have a parallel "by country" category structure too. The latter being the baseline for all worldwide geography related categories. Problem is that many countries are part of several continents: geographical and political schemes don't map always very well. --Foroa (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, most images can be located in a specific country. A complication is that the exceptions include images on railways, roadways or bodies of water that cross national boundaries. Geo Swan (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- per continent is overcat? --High Contrast (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Category has been emptied, all images that were collected there could have been allocated to soecific countries. The category itself is superfluous because if a certain river belongs to two contries (border river), such rivers are simply categorized with the two cats frozen rivers of COUNTRY A and frozen rivers of COUNTRY B. That's much more precise than a category frozen rivers of the European Union. In addition the European Union is neither a "country" nor a static union of national states. High Contrast (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
What is this supposed to contain? House Sparrows don't have any "homes". Nests? there already is a category. —innotata 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Category is empty. Armbrust (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, may be recreated when photos of him are uploaded to Commons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Previously nominated by DenghiùComm with the following comment: "Empty category since more than a year." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a naming error. Baggio has moved the pages to Category:Castells a la Plaça de Sant Jaume instead. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
to delete - correct category is: Category:St. Barbara (Weibern) Reinhardhauke 16:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted (already). --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Seem to be a duplicate of Category:Grandson. Leyo 10:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi I put a pic there and it struck me that he was also Emperor of India and King of the Dominions. Wouldn't it be better to rename it Edward VII RI, (rex (king) imperator (emperor) )_ which is what his title was? Probably the same goes for Queen Victoria and the later Georges, although I haven't checked. Rgds Andrew massyn (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please make a proper request for this category. Furthermore, I believe this isn't worth adding, because it comes from his position as English king (India was part of it back then). --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Closed, this is not the place for a new discussion. --rimshottalk 22:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
spectrum specific illumination Laserles (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you want to discuss anything about this category? --rimshottalk 09:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Closed, no reason for discussion given. --rimshottalk 21:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Should this category be hidden? It's just a standard image source category. -- Docu at 05:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, it shouldn't be hidden. It's a source, but also it's a useful navigational category for images by a theme.
- Why do we ever hide image source categories? Merely because many of them, such as Photographs_by_Andy_Dingley, are a courtesy to authors and aren't of particular use to image viewers. For some sources though, there is a strong themed connection to them and viewers will wish to navigate in that context. That's true of celebrated photographers Annie Liebovitz, Lee Miller etc. where the author is of interest themselves, of photographers such as Reece Winstone or Francis Frith where the collection is a well-known historical resource, and it should be obvious that this is the case for a collection like the AWM, where this has been assembled deliberately to have some value as a thematic collection. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- While there are some maintenance categories that can be hidden, I am firm believer that most categories ought not to be. It doesn't help anyone, and it's usually fairly arbitrary (I don't mean that as a criticism for contributors who work so hard on maintenance categories). Andy comments are also well said. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Maintenance" categories can also be hidden because those editors who care about maintenance will also be likely to have "show hidden cats" enabled. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- While there are some maintenance categories that can be hidden, I am firm believer that most categories ought not to be. It doesn't help anyone, and it's usually fairly arbitrary (I don't mean that as a criticism for contributors who work so hard on maintenance categories). Andy comments are also well said. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Not hidden, as consensus leans that way. --rimshottalk 23:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
edf5gw2w 83.175.208.170 16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps themes in the name is misleading (that is, theme could be both a set of icons but also a subject). Rename to Category:Icons by application or Category:Sets of icons ? Then strip it of what belongs to Category:Icons by subject. Some, like Category:Hexagonal icons are named as if they were Category:Icons by shape, but their contents are also unique themes (sets). NVO (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
'Close. Started to reply to this and then realized the nominator's reason was "edf5gw2w", thus closing it as nonsense. If it's misleading it's because some stuff doesn't belong in it. Rocket000 (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate to Oncorhynchus clarkii which is the proper name Mike Cline (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete since there is a duplicate...--MONGO (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a good source for that? Google finds both spellings. --rimshottalk 13:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept as Redirect. Common taxonomic synonyms (even if invalid) should remain as redirects to avoid real duplicates over and over again. Helps with search results / interwiki'ing as well. Rocket000 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Nach der bisherigen Anzahl von Bleiglasgfenstern bei commons müssten in diese Kategorie mehrere tausend Dateien. SO eine Kategorisierung ist bei diesem Thema unsinnig! Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Rien n'empêche de sous-catégoriser, mais c'est évidemment plus simple de tout virer, ça évite de trier. Catégorisation chronologique utile en histoire de l'art. --Coyau (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- People in universities etc. are currently working on "19th century stained glass windows"! We just have to creat sub-categories: what's the problem? Remi Mathis (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think could be very useful, and it should be filled much more. There has been a lot of academic research into medieval windows, but there has not much been much to be found about the 19th century windows, until quite recently. The Commons may be the best online repository of that kind of art (since the classic academic databases are mostly from the 1950s and 1960s, when these artworks were considered total crap and were often even demolished). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept as Category:19th-century stained glass windows. Over-crowding is a reason for subdivision (by year/genre) not deletion. Ideally it shouldn't contain any files. Rocket000 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Nach der bisherigen Anzahl von Bleiglasgfenstern bei commons müssten in diese Kategorie mehrere tausend Dateien. SO eine Kategorisierung ist bei diesem Thema unsinnig! Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- cf. Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:19th century stained glass windows… --Coyau (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept as Category:20th-century stained glass windows. Same reason as Category:19th century stained glass windows. Rocket000 (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
High subjective category, without distincion. I don't see the category helps any further. Avron (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Category:Conflicts. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Nazwa tej kategorii niewiele mówi; pliki należy przenieść do Category:Street signs in Warsaw Grzexs (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nie mam nic przeciwko przeniesieniu ale wydaje mi się że to będzie za szeroka kategoria. Proponuje ją od razu podzielić na węższe w dwóch trybach. To znaczy ze względu na typ tabliczki (podłużne; kwadratowe; drogowskazy; pamiątkowe...) oraz ze względu na lokalizacje (np. dzielnicami lub ulicami jeśli jest więcej). Tylko jak to będzie ładnie po angielsku? Marek M (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Pierwotna propozycja byłaby zawężeniem. MSI to też tablice informacyjne (
), które nie mają nic wspólnego z tablicami ulicznymi, nie mówiąc już o mapach, które w ogóle nie muszą być umieszczone na małej architekturze (
). Nawiasem mówiąc, to nie wszystkie warszawskie tablice uliczne i numery domów można z czystym sumieniem zaliczyć do obiektów MSI, bo powstały na długo przed nim. Panek (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Niezależnie od tego czy kategoria Miejski_System_Informacji jest zasadna warto by ustalić jak mają się nazywać kategorie pewnymi typami obiektów. Poniżej tabelka, proszę o sugestie.
Marek M (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Z tego, co dopisałem do tabeli, każdej grupie da się przypisać jakąś kategorię już istniejącą. Każda jednak z tych kategorii ma też obiekty, które nie są w MSI (chyba że uznamy, że takie numery jak ten 
zostały wchłonięte przez MSI bez dopasowywania do jego szablonu). Zwłaszcza kategorie "tablice informacyjne" i "mapy" są o wiele pojemniejsze i tam aż się prosi o wyróżnianie tych tabliczek pleksiglasowych własną kategorią i map Warszawy tych na tablicach ulicznych, jak i tych w cyberprzestrzeni. Większość obrazków w kategorii Category:Locator maps of Warsaw to mapy obszarów MSI (a nie "prawdziwych" dzielnic i osiedli Warszawy). Nie miałbym nic przeciwko kategoriom typu Category:MSI information boards in Warsaw dla takich tabliczek jak ta pierwsza, która byłaby podkategorią dla Category:Information boards in Warsaw i Category:Miejski_System_Informacji i tak samo dla kolejnych. Dla map można by stworzyć jakieś w stylu Category:Outdoor MSI maps of Warsaw. Panek (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Dopisałem do tabelki nazwy stosowane na stronie http://www.zdm.waw.pl/msi/o-systemie-msi.html. Myślę że nie pasują one zbytnio do tutejszego systemu kategorii ale pokazują jakie kategorie wyróżnia się oficjalnie. Nie znalazłem by problem tych kategorii był rozwiązany tak jak proponujesz w jakimś innym mieście. Zgadzam się że należy udzielić obecny MSI od starych tabliczek. Myślę że nie należy stosować skrótu. Może styl: Tablica adresowa miejskiego systemu informacji w warszawie (House numbers City Information System in Warsaw ?). Należy pamiętać że styl nazw kategorii powinien dać się zastosować do innych SMI. Marek M (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Co do kompatybilności z innymi systemami (w Polsce i nie tylko), to i tak, i nie. Dobrze, jeśliby się dało to jakoś ładnie pokategoryzować, tak żeby np. House numbers City Information System in Warsaw i House numbers City Information System in Gdansk mogły być w nadrzędnej kategorii, ale jeśli jakieś rozwiązania będą lepsze dla Warszawy (Łodzi, Nowego Jorku itd.), to nie ma sensu ich odrzucać w imię zasad kompatybilności. Takim przykładem byłyby tabliczki równoległości/prostopadłości, bo w taki układ z osiową rzeką jest wyróżniony w Warszawie, a gdzie indziej nie. Tyle że akurat tych tabliczek jest chyba 4 i nie ma sensu tworzyć dla nich kategorii (nawet nie wiem, czy jest sens obfotografować wszystkie cztery typy). Oczywiście, np. w biologii kategorie wiki odpowiadają taksonom i istnienie jednoelementowych kategorii jest typowe, ale nie sądzę, żeby tu było to właściwe rozwiązanie. Pewnym problemem jest nakładanie się tablic/znaków MSI na tablice/znaki drogowe (różnego rodzaju tablice rozprowadzające i opisujące granice dzielnic to analogi drogowskazów i tablic miejscowości, dlatego można je wrzucić do lokalnych podkategorii Category:Road signs, nawet jeśli nie są zgodne z jakimiś wykazami ministerstwa infrastruktury. Nie widzę szczególnego sensu w rozróżnianiu tablic niebieskich i brązowych, ale to moje widzimisię. Byłbym za stworzeniem Category:Outdoor maps of Warsaw dla zewnętrznych map MSI i ZTM (jak ta
). Można by pomyśleć o włączeniu tego do Category:Place legend boards. Z tymi dwustronnymi tablicami i ich włączeniem do kategorii mapowej jest problem o tyle, o ile mają one drugą stronę nie zawsze z mapami, a np. informacjami o licencjach taksi itd. W ogóle jednak kwestia znaków informacji turystycznej na Commons kwiczy w chaosie. Ostatecznie więc byłbym za przemianowaniem Category:Miejski_System_Informacji na
Category:City Information System in Warsaw, wyrzuceniem jej z Category:Street furniture in Warsaw, a wrzuceniem do Category:Warsaw i Category:City information systems in Poland. Nie wiem, czy dobrym pomysłem byłoby wrzucenie kategorii tej do Category:Tourism in Warsaw.
- Jednak byłbym bardziej drobiazgowy. Wydaje mi się że skoro ministerstwo rozróżnia brązowe (Category:House numbers in the Old Town area in Warsaw (City Information System?) i niebieskie my też powinniśmy, podobnie z tablicami na istniejącym nośniku i na słupku złożonym. Czy może jednak za bardzo się rozdrabniam? Co do kompatybilność zgadzam się że nie wszędzie się da i w niektórych miastach będą kategorie specjalne. Wydaje mi się że jeśli tabliczkę można uznać za znak drogowy to powinna być niezależnie kategoryzowana jako znak i jako tabliczka. Marek M (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Dyskusja zamarła, więc zastosowałem zasadę Śmiało Edytuj Strony. Zrobiłem to według swojej, częściowo ukształtowanej tą dyskusją wizji. Jeśli ktoś chce coś zmodyfikować (np. rozdrobnić na "Old Town and the Royal Tract Area"), to może być równie śmiały, jak ja. Nie będę odstawiał Rejtana. Utworzyłem też kilka kategorii dla innych miast, nieco bardziej szkieletowo. Panek (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Na razie jest ok moim zdaniem, jeśli będzie więcej brązowych to podzielę. Może warto jakoś ujednolicić opis? Tutaj zaproponowałem taki: Polski: Tablica MSI: Ul. Rolna 191/193 (Służew)Marek M (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mrówcza praca to nie dla mnie, ale nie będę oponował. Bardziej mi zależy na porządku w kategoryzacji niż na jednolitości opisów. Panek (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Na razie jest ok moim zdaniem, jeśli będzie więcej brązowych to podzielę. Może warto jakoś ujednolicić opis? Tutaj zaproponowałem taki:
Deleted, more than a year ago. I assume this discussion done. --rimshottalk 21:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Reasons for discussion request -- This category currently contains images of at least two different John Breckinridges – an Attorney General of Kentucky in the 19th century and his better-known grandson John C. Breckinridge, the U.S. Vice-President. Other notable John Breckinridges include John B. Breckinridge, 20th century Congressman and Attorney General of Kentucky, and John C. "Bunny" Breckinridge, a U.S. actor. I propose that Category:John Breckinridge be reserved for the 19th century John Breckinridge and that Category:John C. Breckinridge be created for the VP and Category:Bunny Breckinridge be created for the actor. Currently, we have no images of John B. Breckinridge, but the category to be created in the future would obviously be Category:John B. Breckinridge. These might all be things that I can do myself, but I'm pretty new to Commons, so I'm listing it here. Acdixon (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- See en:John Breckinridge. There is no rule for priority naming. All names should be disambiguated. Initials are avoided on Commons. So I would suggest:
- En:John Breckinridge (Virginia and Kentucky) (1760–1806), United States Senator and Attorney General --> Category:John Breckinridge (1760)
- En:John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875), U.S. Representative and Senator, Vice President of the United States, and a Confederate general in the American Civil War --> Category:John Breckinridge (1821)
- En:John B. Breckinridge (1913–1979), Attorney General of Kentucky and member of the United States House of Representatives --> Category:John Breckinridge (1913)
- John Cabell Breckinridge (1903–1996), best known as En:Bunny Breckinridge, American actor
- En:John Breckinridge (Liberia), former Vice President of Liberia --> Category:John Breckinridge (Liberia)
--Foroa (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- If this is standard operating procedure on Commons, I have no problem with it. Acdixon (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Split per nominator. When people are best known by their initials, we use those initials; Foroa would do well to look at categories such as Category:John F. Kennedy or Category:George W. Bush. Vice President Breckinridge is best known by that name today, and speakers of English will naturally use that one instead of the clunky disambiguation by date. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguated, which appears sensible as the category was re-created and re-deleted in the meantime. --rimshottalk 21:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
This category page has been extended to become a likely copyright violation. The text has been taken from the British Museum database and though there was an existing informal understanding with the museum, removing the text from some pages and now transcluding it to multiple image pages no longer falls under the previous understanding of how this text would be used. The text is transcluded into all related pages including minor detail shots which do not require the full exposition. I propose that the changes introduced by Zolo are reverted in accordance with the principles of BRD as requested several times previously (see Template talk:British-Museum-object and User_talk:Zolo#Blanking_of_information). The tentative benefits of "generalization" do not outweigh the risk here of copyright violation or the disruption these blanket changes have caused by introducing associated errors and inaccuracies. Fæ (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- This has more to do with the template than the existence or sub-categorization of the category itself... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- The text in question is on the category page, not embedded in a template. --Fæ (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Three points:
- The use of this template is certainly questionable and I have tried to discuss it at {{Artwork}} and some other places.
- You can read the pages mentioned by Fæ but you won't find much about copyright violaton there.
- I still don't know where the copyright violation is, but if there is, we need to think a bit more about it. All photos in this category depict the same object, so I think we can agree the description should be more or less the same in all pages. So if we use some content from the museum's database in one file, it would only be logical to do it in all files. The result will be about the same as if we transcluded it from a template or a category. Except that it is much longer to correct.--Zolo (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- With regard to the nature of the photos as stated above some are detail depictions of sub-figures for which the general description seems pointless as it may refer to details not in the photograph that the reader has in front of them and one is of a display case containing several other objects so again the description is inaccurate and may be misleading.
- As for your suggestion of thinking more about the potential copyright violation you have created, good idea, perhaps now would be the time to revert your changes while you give yourself time to think about it. --Fæ (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- As you may have noticed, I have tried to change the template to make it clearer that details were details. As you know I have reverted my changes in the category and in one file. According to your "fair use" principle I doubt there can be any objection.--Zolo (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand your point, the description quoted on the category page is cut & paste from the BM database record and transcluded to several other pages rather than being used in individual image pages as originally envisaged. In what way have you fixed the problem? --Fæ (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had forgotten one image, as you may have guessed. What exactly is your position ? That it is fine to copy-paste a copyrighted text in several files but not to transclude it ?--Zolo (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, as explained previously more than once, a fair use limited quote used against the image page for the artefact was considered reasonable. Pasting the same text into a general category page with the intention of it being transcluded for any image and for any new image that later users care to add is an entirely different context. --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had forgotten one image, as you may have guessed. What exactly is your position ? That it is fine to copy-paste a copyrighted text in several files but not to transclude it ?--Zolo (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand your point, the description quoted on the category page is cut & paste from the BM database record and transcluded to several other pages rather than being used in individual image pages as originally envisaged. In what way have you fixed the problem? --Fæ (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- As you may have noticed, I have tried to change the template to make it clearer that details were details. As you know I have reverted my changes in the category and in one file. According to your "fair use" principle I doubt there can be any objection.--Zolo (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you mean fair use in a technical sense, we just have to delete the information. Sorry then if I did not reply properly to some of your previous remarks. I thought you knew that Commons did not allow fair use.
- If you mean that the British Museum gave some form of informal consent to use the description in eleven pages but stated they did not want to have it transcluded in ten files, then some clarification would be welcome. It appears to be at odds with what you mentioned earlier, notably on a page that you pointed out to me: w:Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BM/Archive 1#Quoting descriptions for objects from the on-line collection database and copyright--Zolo (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)(minor corrections --Zolo (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
- The clarification is that informal conversation indicates that taking the summary description from the database record they would not care about in practice though they would be concerned if this were in a format that could easily be data-mined instead of going to their database as a source. Unfortunately due to policy, they will make no statement about it and if asked would formally point to the website T&Cs which restrict to limited non-commercial use. As I previously stated, by reformatting the image pages so that this text is transcluded to multiple pages, you have invalidated any tacit agreement and as you are so adamant that the orthodoxy of Commons means that there is no rationale that can deflect users such as yourself from making the image pages as easy to data-mine as possible, I see little other option but to reverse my viewpoint expressed during GLAM/BM discussion about how to do this, and instead I am forced advocate the removal of all direct quotes from the BM database on all existing images on Commons (not just this one under discussion) in order to protect the interests of the copyright holder. This will be quite disruptive and unfortunately to the obvious detriment of the current image descriptions as the BM database records are the most accurate information we can use being based on the BM curator's own descriptions. After giving some more time for any responses here (say another week), I will make a proposal on en:WP:GLAM/BM and outreach:GLAM/Discussion as this may affect our relationships with the British Museum and several other institutions if the bulldozer enforcement of {{Artwork}} can accept no exceptions or listen to rational argument. --Fæ (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- imo We should not take the contents of any non factual database that has data that has been updated in the last 70 years.... although it could be given. (Minor infringements can be overlooked because we are human, but should be fixed) In the case of the BM we have an additional requirement because they have looked after us.
- If I overlook for the moment the problem of copyright and moral rights we have our own policy. Commons in not an encyclopedia. It certainly is not an English language encyclopedia. If we were to take thousands of complete good descriptions in English of notable artefacts then I think we would undermine our own product(s). A summary would be OK if it contains facts and not description. Hope that helps.
- And I see that it doesnt mention Burney Relief ... that really does complete the undermining of a Good Article. Why can't we use text from there? That text is made for sharing, why would we not use the text we recommend? Victuallers (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have thought about this point previously, the Commons description should be focussed on the description of the photograph. It seems reasonable (and in line with Commons policy) to include a very brief description of the artefact but if this is cut & paste from the Wikipedia article along with a host of facts about the artefact (not the photograph!), then why not just link the category to the Wikipedia article rather than creating a maintenance headache and duplicating text which will lack any of the associated spread of reliable sources that the Wikipedia article diligently quotes against these facts? --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Fae. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fæ, now you make your point more precisely.
- Commons is not an English language Wikipedia and one of the benefits of {{Artwork}} is precisely to ease multilinguality. Persnnally I think I would support the removal of the "description" section since it is copied from the BM database and makes the description a bit long. And I certainly think it should cite its source.
- I must emphasize that {{Artwork}} does not imply transclusion. So I would suggest to either keep the discussion focused on the use of {{Artwork}} or to split it into two different parts, one about {{Artwork}} the other about the transclusion of object description
- note: hoping it will calm down the debate, I now remove the few transclusions I had made of British Museum object descriptions.--Zolo (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC) edited --Zolo (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- This discussion is about the category. However your point is poorly made as you forced the use of the more accurate template British-Museum-object on image pages to be removed and replaced with Artwork on this category page which actually has fewer languages available than the original template and has field names that are a worse fit for a museum object (such as medium, accession number (rather than registration, catalogue number, or reference which appears to be used for a website link rather than a reference) and title (this has a name it is now known by, it does not have a title as a work of art)). I shall trim some of the text that appears to be possible copyright violation from the category whilst under discussion but please consider the discussion open and so the consensus may be to replace some of it or to re-write it. --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think this discussion is about whether we should or should not have Category:Old_Babylonian_period_Queen_of_Night_relief.
- I have never considered this discussion closed. I was pointed out that there were two different questions and that they would be best handled sepately. If we the consensus is that we should not use {{Artwork}}, then obvously we should remove it from the category.
- I am not sure to get your point about the number of language available. I suppose you do not say we have more translations for {{British-Museum-object}} that for {{Artwork}}--Zolo (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- British-Museum-object has "British Museum" in 11 languages, had anyone ever asked for more variations for the sub-titles we probably could have easily added some. Artwork has 5 languages shown in the drop list. 5 is less than 11. --Fæ (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- The drop list was due to an oversight on the documentation page. It is fixed now. If you look a bit further down in the page you will notice that the template has 60 translations (some are not fully complete but it should be done soon). Only one part of one field is translated in {{British-Museum-object}}. This yields either an ungrammatical language mix or no translation at all and is not very easy to correct. Even if we don't take literally the 1% rule, more people are likely to want than to provide translations and it is easier to translate one template than many. --Zolo (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC) edited --Zolo (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hang on, Artwork is transcluded in nearly 70,000 pages and you are still debugging it? I don't see a strong argument for 60 language variations in the template, there is no way we are ever going to get around to providing a fraction of the translations necessary for this to be useful for photos of BM hosted artefacts where, at the end of the day, if the visitors can't understand the BM website with its limited translations (the online catalogue is only available in English and that is the primary reference used for the artefact descriptions) then making Commons a couple of magnitudes more translated makes no practical difference and would be a poor use of our edit-time. --Fæ (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- The drop list was due to an oversight on the documentation page. It is fixed now. If you look a bit further down in the page you will notice that the template has 60 translations (some are not fully complete but it should be done soon). Only one part of one field is translated in {{British-Museum-object}}. This yields either an ungrammatical language mix or no translation at all and is not very easy to correct. Even if we don't take literally the 1% rule, more people are likely to want than to provide translations and it is easier to translate one template than many. --Zolo (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC) edited --Zolo (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- British-Museum-object has "British Museum" in 11 languages, had anyone ever asked for more variations for the sub-titles we probably could have easily added some. Artwork has 5 languages shown in the drop list. 5 is less than 11. --Fæ (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- This discussion is about the category. However your point is poorly made as you forced the use of the more accurate template British-Museum-object on image pages to be removed and replaced with Artwork on this category page which actually has fewer languages available than the original template and has field names that are a worse fit for a museum object (such as medium, accession number (rather than registration, catalogue number, or reference which appears to be used for a website link rather than a reference) and title (this has a name it is now known by, it does not have a title as a work of art)). I shall trim some of the text that appears to be possible copyright violation from the category whilst under discussion but please consider the discussion open and so the consensus may be to replace some of it or to re-write it. --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Fae. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have thought about this point previously, the Commons description should be focussed on the description of the photograph. It seems reasonable (and in line with Commons policy) to include a very brief description of the artefact but if this is cut & paste from the Wikipedia article along with a host of facts about the artefact (not the photograph!), then why not just link the category to the Wikipedia article rather than creating a maintenance headache and duplicating text which will lack any of the associated spread of reliable sources that the Wikipedia article diligently quotes against these facts? --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Either it's a copyvio and it has to go, otherwise it should be kept. -- Docu at 07:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd argue that the use of the summeries isn't particulary safe copyright wise and as wikipedia's selection of articles in individual BM objects exampands it becomes less important. We should probably remove them and focus on a free alturnative.Geni (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Closed, stale discussion that was never really about a category, but rather about templates. --rimshottalk 21:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
This looks redundant to the parent category Category:Reading Martin H. (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hm, on second thought this impression possibly comes from the incompleteness. Most of the content from Category:Reading is related to people reading and belongs to this subcategory, maybe its 99% of the "reading" topic that will belongs to "reading people", so maybe the category is not redundant but does it make sense to separate the majority of the content? --Martin H. (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I made it just two months ago to have the possibility to subcat it to "People by activity". However, I had not the time to push all files down to the new category. And probably I did it not right away to first wait for comments like "what a useless category did you create there?!". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with adding "people" is that afterwards users tend to differentiate "people" by gender, occupation, age instead of subcategorizing the topic "reading" properly. -- Docu at 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm ..But all those categories (e.g. reading men) are a subcategory of reading - so these files would be in "reading" (as they are in a sub category). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, but Category:Reading books, Category:Reading newspapers, Category:Reading Wikipedia seem more interesting than Category:Reading men ..
- An the other hand, even if you want to build Category:Reading books, Category:Reading newspapers, etc, it helps when images are already available in some category with "reading" in its name. -- Docu at 19:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, reading by medium (book, newspaper, screen, ...) would be useful, too.
- Well - that is a general problem of our cat system in cats where there are several "by" subcategories. Sometimes files get pushed down one subcat tree but are not inserted also in the other subcat tree. But the solution is not to forbid several subcat trees. It would be better to (maybe via bot) add the main cat of the second subtree if one file is moved just to one subtree. E.g. a file which is in 'reading' is moved to 'reading men' Then a bot could add 'reading by unidentified medium' to the file (maybe the "unidentified" could be omitted).Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's an interesting idea. To some extend it can be done by CatScan2. Personally I mainly use search for that, but this would be a way more accessible to most users.
- BTW, I went ahead and created Category:Reading newspapers just to discover that we got Category:Newspaper readers as subcategory of Category:readers ;)
- Looking at Category:Reading men, I think there are some other subcategories of Category:Reading that might be missing: Category:Reading in bed, Category:Reading in the metro (or "in Rapid transit").
- At Reading people, Category:Reading to babies and children does seem more helpful than Category:Reading males. -- Docu at 03:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) (edited)
- Hmm ..But all those categories (e.g. reading men) are a subcategory of reading - so these files would be in "reading" (as they are in a sub category). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with adding "people" is that afterwards users tend to differentiate "people" by gender, occupation, age instead of subcategorizing the topic "reading" properly. -- Docu at 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Catscan2 - who uses catscan? ;) Few people who know how to operate it. We are happy if people do know how to categorize. Such a bot thing would be really worth a try / some thoughts. But - as always - I cannot (well, I could with much time effort since I had never run a bot but know how to program) and do not have the time currently.
- Hmm.. "Readers" - good catch! But it is a sub category of "People by association" and, honestly, I do not know what should belong in there. Yes, some subcategories are more useful than others. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- For categories where there are several independent "by .." subtrees, the bot could copy the files from one to the other. It could even add them directly into the other "by" category, thus allowing to move them further down. However, sometimes not all files be categorized by both criteria and some files shouldn't be in one of the categories in the first place. Thus it might need to be a tool that works "on demand", just like CatScan2 ..
- Re "readers", maybe we should try to everything that can be moved to "reading people" and just leave what remains. -- Docu at 05:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure - sometimes a file does only belong into one subtree. The problem about "on demand" is that only some users will use it. If we had a bot which acts like described above more people will contribute to this work since they see there are files which need to be categorized deeper into this subtree. This discussion is a bit wrong here. But - honestly - I do not have the spare time currently to really make up my mind about a good mechanism.
- Readers: Sure - that was my original intend with this category. I will do some files now. Sadly this stupid Catalot does break operation at about 6 files everytime. I have to use hotcat (the good part: I can also check/improve the other cats in the same edit). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I will think about the bot idea. I think it could work well with fairly stable structures. BTW Strange your problems with catalot: works fine for me.
← Oh .. and: What about to create a subtree "Category:Reading by medium" (Category:Reading books, Category:Reading newspapers, Category:Reading Wikipedia, ...)? But what to do with Category:People with books? How to differentiate/define? With "see also cat" and:
- Category:Reading books → anything which concerns reading books - so, not only people who are reading books?
- Category:People with books → people with books beneath them
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe we should add Category:People with books where it applies too and keep all "people with foobar" separate. -- Docu at 07:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, okay, separate and see also in the cats' heads.
- So, do you agree that e.g. File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - United through Reading.jpg should have those categories? Category:Reading females, Category:Reading books, Category:Females with books
- Btw: Don't you want to merge your two duplicate newspaper categories? ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- For "File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - United through Reading.jpg" I'd use Female soldiers, Reading books, People with books, but I don't mind if you use the other ones (e.g. some sort of Category:Reading people). Not sure if "people with foobar" needs a gender, I'd use Category:People with children's books instead.
- If I understood the description of the image correctly, it might also need Category:Reading aloud or Category:Reading (aloud) for recording.
- For Category:Reading newspapers I thought of making it a subcategory of Category:newspaper readers. Docu at 09:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC), 10:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC) (edited)
- Okay, we essentially have the same categories for this example image (I did not list Female soldiers here since it is not related to reading).
- @"Not sure if "people with foobar" needs a gender": we have Category:Females with objects. So this makes sense.
- I have created Category:Reading by medium and Category:Reading books now.
- For People with children's books: feel free to create it as a subcategory of People with books. Category:Reading (aloud) for recording seems not useful to me. These will not be much pictures and most commonly you do not see the microphone. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- The new cats look good.
- I listed Female soldiers as at some point one should add a category for the gender of the person.
- Category:Reading (aloud) for recording might not be that useful, but I think we need some category like Category:Reading aloud or Category:Reading to others that could be a parent category to Category:Reading to babies and children.
- A problem I see with Category:Females with objects is that it complicates describing the object (We don't need to discuss this here though). -- Docu at 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if mixing "reading books" together with "book reading techniques" is ideal as they don't illustrate reading books as such. Maybe Category:Book readers could be a parent to some of the subcategories added to Category:Reading books. -- Docu at 13:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Reading to others sounds good for me. Sadly I cannot fine a good second super category for it. Something like Category:Addressing others or Category:Presenting.
- What do you mean by "I'm not sure if mixing "reading books" together with "book reading techniques""? I do not understand.
- What do you think of a subcategory of Category:People with books and Category:Reading books: Category:People with books and reading in them (or a similar name)? It would simplify the categorization of images. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- 1. I will create Category:Reading to others then.
- 2. I had in mind Category:Map reading (not "reading maps") as subcategory of Category:Reading by medium and the somewhat similar Category:Bible reading (as a subcategory of Reading books) as well as Category:World Book Day. At least in Category:World Book Day in Helsinki 2010 just 1 of 19 shows someone reading a book. Maybe the situation is similar for the other two categories (Map reading, Bible reading).
- 3. I have to think about that one. Seems somewhat complex -- Docu at 12:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- 2. Ah - I see. Well, most pictures we have are just people who are holding xyz and reading in it. So the content for the technique of "map reading" will be very small - but - yes, do it if you think it is useful. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if mixing "reading books" together with "book reading techniques" is ideal as they don't illustrate reading books as such. Maybe Category:Book readers could be a parent to some of the subcategories added to Category:Reading books. -- Docu at 13:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I would say your new categories Category:Reading when standing and ...walking should be renamed to Category:People reading when standing (the a subcat of Reading people by position (which would be a nice subcat of People by position)). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I kind of liked Category:reading when walking ;). I don't think we need Category:Reading when sitting. Personally, I'm fine with the current category names. This avoids ending up with "Females reading when standing". -- Docu at 12:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Humm, well - okay. ;-) But without a clear connection to "people" they can only be subcats of Reading which means then I need to add to a fictive file: Category:Reading when standing and a subcat of "Standing people".
- However - both catgories should be in a "by" category, I'd say. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Closed, the original problem seems to have been resolved and the category scheme well-developed. For detail problems, for example a common parent for Category:Reading when walking and Category:Reading when standing, open a new discussion if needed. --rimshottalk 22:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The category Passages is redirected to Shopping arcades though many passages are more shopping malls than shopping arcades and many passages have no "arcus", ŠJů (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC) French passages are categorized as "shopping arcades", German passages as "Shopping malls". --ŠJů (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should use "Shopping malls" to start with, and then "Shopping arcades" will be a subcategory used when "arches" are present in that mall. The word Passage has too many meanings, so it should be a disambiguation page, and not a redirect, in my opinion.--Jordiferrer (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Passage" is the French word for what is the 19th century shopping arcade, and the term was imported in many other countries as well. Modern shopping malls use both terms even if do not really resemble the historic structures they reference. In architecture "shopping arcade" refers to a type, described as "Covered walkway, usually top-lit, with shops on both or one side", so is not defined by the presence of arches. Thus in that regard the redirect is ok, as File:Passage des Panoramas.JPG is a shopping arcade just as File:Burlington Arcade, north entrance.jpg. --ELEKHHT 13:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Some of passages (or their parts) are without shops – some passages go through cinema or theatre vestibule, or simply between walls and house entrances. The characteristic attribute of a passage is that it "passages" through a building. A passage is something like a street passaging through a house. Shops can be and can not be there, just as on any street. I think, a shopping arcade is not an adequate synonym for a passage. Some passages can be shopping arcades, some aren't. Btw., I'm not sure that the term "shopping arcade" is able to differentiate a shopping passage (going through the house) and an arcade going along the house (see an example). The Czech language has two different words: "pasáž" for the first and "podloubí" for the second type. As i know, English calls both types "arcades". How can they be distinguished? --ŠJů (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted long ago and not recreated, which is a hint that this is not really needed. --rimshottalk 22:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Category should be named "Beschreibung des Oberamts Heilbronn (1865)" because there is another description from 1903, see Category:De Oberamt Heilbronn 2. SteMicha (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Changing the category name would break a lot of links at de.wikisource, which would have to be corrected. Is this really worth the effort? --Rosenzweig δ 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where, apart from [1], is the category linked? SteMicha (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- On at least three more pages, [2], [3], [4], perhaps more. But even more important, here at Commons 377 files would have to be changed just to correct something that isn't really a problem, because the later description already has its own category (Category:De Oberamt Heilbronn 2 and, presumably, Category:De Oberamt Heilbronn for the first volume). So is it really necessary to change the category name? --Rosenzweig δ 01:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Point taken. How do we close this discussion? SteMicha (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- On at least three more pages, [2], [3], [4], perhaps more. But even more important, here at Commons 377 files would have to be changed just to correct something that isn't really a problem, because the later description already has its own category (Category:De Oberamt Heilbronn 2 and, presumably, Category:De Oberamt Heilbronn for the first volume). So is it really necessary to change the category name? --Rosenzweig δ 01:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where, apart from [1], is the category linked? SteMicha (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Needs to be disambiguated anyway one day. The longer we wait, the more we'll have problems. Please note that linking to (redirected) commons galleries such as Beschreibung des Oberamts Heilbronn avoids that type of problems. --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would be the same problem, wouldn´t it? SteMicha (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not really. For human navigation, disambiguation is less needed and is easy to solve with hat notes. For a categorisation system and bot categorisation, disambiguation is mandatory, but those don't go through galleries. So categories can be renamed without impacting their galleries and related external links. But category naming, renaming and linking remains de weak point of the Wiki software design. --Foroa (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would be the same problem, wouldn´t it? SteMicha (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept, added {{See also}} to both categories. --JuTa 01:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe not compleatly useless category but now wrong contents. When I remove them so category will be empty. Avron (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, indeed. I emptied an deleted it. --JuTa 01:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest merging contents of Category:Riverboats into Category:River ships. Objections? If there's any reason to keep "boats" separate from "ships", then contents must be clearly separated - which goes where. But where's the bright line? Slap me if it was discussed before. I'm sure it was, either here or at en-wiki, but cannot find discussion page. NVO (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is always difficult to divide between ships on inland waters and seagoing ships. Just because there are always ships and boats on both types of water. E.G. tugboats can be found from time to time on the rivers and from time to time on the seas. There we have the problem, not between ships and boats, as this is a known problem, discussed before and will be discussed from time to time. You can put a boat on a ship, not a ship on a boat. But there are exceptions as tugboats, pilot boats, tenders and so on. There might even be a difference in British, American and other English. On rivers you find barges, passenger ships, tugboats towing and tugboats pushing, dredge ships and other service vessels. --have to change location, later more-- --Stunteltje (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a typical riverboat: File:Lavrinenkov302.JPG. But it's also a river ship. Should it stay in both buckets? I'm afraid that keeping status quo will end up in largely overlapping categories (large Category:Sidewheel riverboats is already in both trees). NVO (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- For me she is definately a ship. (But even in Dutch you can call her a "rondvaartboot".) The problem is that for cargo transport on rivers we have barges, but transporting passengers on rivers no different name/type is used for a ship, passenger ships exist for inland and sea. So merging the categories in Category:River ships can be a solution for these ships, but still she has a Category:Passenger ships (by a certain country). I myself should categorise her as Category:Viking Lavrinenkov (ship, 1989), Category:River cruise ships and Category:Passenger ships of Russia. I don't even see much value in Category:River ships, as we have river cruise ships and barges. In most cases sidewheel riverboats and sternwheelers are special types of passenger ships. The sidewheelers are sometimes tugboats, used inland and at sea. I only see value for not cruising passenger ships, but who knows when they are cruising or used as ferry, hotel and so on. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a typical riverboat: File:Lavrinenkov302.JPG. But it's also a river ship. Should it stay in both buckets? I'm afraid that keeping status quo will end up in largely overlapping categories (large Category:Sidewheel riverboats is already in both trees). NVO (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Some of my fellow participants here can participate in multiple languages, or are fluent in multiple languages. I want to remember that the commons is supposed to serve participants of all languages.
It has always seemed to me that a word like "vessel" includes boats, ships, sailing ships, submarines, and Category:River vessels would be a good compromise here. Geo Swan (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Solves the problem in the difference between boat or ship. No objection from me, but only a question. Do you intend to add this category to just categories, individual ships/boats by name or to every image of a vessel used on inland waterways? E.g. River vessels are: Barges, River cruise schips, Cable ferries, Reaction ferries and River ferries, we have to split Vehicle ferries, add the category to at lot of Passenger ships and so on? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, please note that passenger vessels on the Mississippi River and other American inland waters are always "boats" or "riverboats", not "ships", even if they are quite large. The only exceptions would be ocean going vessels that happened to be on a river temporarily. Also, I have never heard the term "rivership" or "river ship" in American or British usage to describe any vessel, passenger or cargo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Brühl ceated new Category:Self-propelled barges and it gives us the possibility to integrate the Barges / Riverboats categories, but with another category-name: Category:Barges and Riverboats. I started a discussion on his user page:
- I don't think it is a good idea to transfer barges to your new category, unless they are not to trace by name. Unless you have the intension to transfer about 1000 barges yourself to that category. First to find out wether or not old barges were self-propelled by the date of the image. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- In some respect you are surely right. But whenever I searched in Category:barges, I found it not being sufficiently structured. Especially this official types of vessels (page 4) not yet could be found by categories. Auf deutsch gibt es schon seit einiger Zeit den Artikel de:Gütermotorschiff (und de:Tankmotorschiff). Now it makes sense to connect the article Gütermotorschiff and Category:Self-propelled barges by commonscat. Of course, it is not always easy to recognize a barge as self-propelled. In doubt, you simply should avoid any transfer. I especially started to transfer only such vessels that are seen in movement. --Brühl (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
and it is wrong in my opinion to restrict to European regulations. Better to make the discussion wider and it brings us at this older discussion. I think it is a good idea to use the same system as given on page 47 in the publication of the Dutch Inland Navigation Promotion. (About half of the West European inland shipping fleet is Dutch.) They give a non-official deviation in:
- Motorised freight vessels
- Motorised tankers
- Push boats
- Tugs
- Towing barges
- Passenger vessels
- Freight push barges
- Tanker push barges
- Towing vessels (mainly Austria)
In my opinion it is a good idea to integrate the Category:Riverboats and Category:Barges in Category:Barges and Riverboats with sub-categories like this. Besides: it makes it possible also to split in the sea-going Category:Passenger ships (with an IMO number for the newer ships) and inland Category:Passenger vessels (with an ENI number for European passenger ships).--Stunteltje (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's a problem in the USA and (I think) Britain. A "barge" in the USA is never self-propelled. It is usually simply a rectangular vessel with a sloping bow. They are very different from the powered barges prevalent in Europe and combining the categories would confuse. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
kept, We have complete splitted category trees Category:Ships and Category:Boats. I see no reason to merge that for river vessels. --JuTa 02:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Copied from the Village Pump at user:Jacklee's suggestion. At first sight it seems rather sensible but if we look into it we see, among other things:
- A museum that does not seem to be radically different from other art museums
- A few artistic techniques or themes (Category:Tondo, Category:Contrapposto). They have nothing special compared to hundreds of similar themes
- Category:History of painting that just contain a few paintings that are no different from thousands of paintings on Commons.
Possibly we could make the category more sensible. But if we include everything that is somehow related to art history I seems to me that it would be so broad that there would not be any real benefit over Category:Art.--Zolo (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (...)
- I agree we need to better define the scope of overarching categories, and a good way is to provide a short description upfront. Obviously if a shallow definition of art history (like applied to Category:Landscape design history) is used by some editors, than all art (or even any human created object) is also art history, so that the category is rendered meaningless. --ELEKHHT 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- To me the simplest solution is to delete this category alltogether. Category:History of painting has just 8 files, all other are simply categorized in other subcategories of paintings and it does not seem to raise any problem. Categories like category:1622 paintings and category:Cinema in the 1930s are quite clear and quite maintainable while the word "history" that is quite ambiguous, which cold produce useless complications. --Zolo (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because of licence and FOP limitations, 99 % of art on Commons is history and belongs in "xxx by period, style, era..." cats. And anyway, the title should be "History of art".--Foroa (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, no, no! History of art is very different from art history. Unfortunately at the moment HofA redirects here, which itr should not. This category is needed if only for the art historians' categories. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Question does it mean you agree that this category should be merged with category:Art ?--Zolo (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, most of it, but not a brutal merge. History of art has only a place when there are exhibitions, studies and books that span a large period of art, so it will come back one way or another, for example the Category:History of cinema, fashion or other art forms in Category:Cultural history. Category:Art history of Brazil needs to be structured "by period" I guess. Category:National Museum of Women in the Arts should stay too. So finally, one cannot call it a real merge. --Foroa (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it can be useful for "studies and books that span a large period of art", and perhaps for Category:Art historians but I'm not sure for Category:History of cinema. We do not really use Category:History of painting and there does not seem to be any problem with that. Sure, cinema is a younger art and a larger proportion of our files are related to current cinema (living actors etc), but I think we could adopt a classification similar to that of paintings without any major problem. I'm not sure about Category:National Museum of Women in the Arts. This is about women in art history but we could also say that the Louvre -and many many other museums- are about the history of art. It seems simpler to use Category:Art museums in all cases.--Zolo (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, most of it, but not a brutal merge. History of art has only a place when there are exhibitions, studies and books that span a large period of art, so it will come back one way or another, for example the Category:History of cinema, fashion or other art forms in Category:Cultural history. Category:Art history of Brazil needs to be structured "by period" I guess. Category:National Museum of Women in the Arts should stay too. So finally, one cannot call it a real merge. --Foroa (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because of licence and FOP limitations, 99 % of art on Commons is history and belongs in "xxx by period, style, era..." cats. And anyway, the title should be "History of art".--Foroa (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- To me the simplest solution is to delete this category alltogether. Category:History of painting has just 8 files, all other are simply categorized in other subcategories of paintings and it does not seem to raise any problem. Categories like category:1622 paintings and category:Cinema in the 1930s are quite clear and quite maintainable while the word "history" that is quite ambiguous, which cold produce useless complications. --Zolo (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- History of art is very different from art history. Unfortunately at the moment HofA redirects here, which it should not. This category is needed if only for the art historians' categories. "History of art" should just go to "Art", Category:History of painting to painting etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
kept, whats not fitting in can be removed from it. No admin action needed. --JuTa 02:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The term "Hotel" is an ambiguous one in Australia, with at least 2 separate but linked meanings. The first is the standard English meaning per en:Hotel. The second is as a common name for what is called in the United Kingdom and Ireland (and elsewhere I assume) a en:Public House aka "Pub".
For historic reasons many pubs in Australia doubled (or were founded) as places to accomodate travellers and hence the most common nomenclature for Australian pubs is along the lines of "X Hotel" i.e. "Royal Hotel", "Commercial Hotel" "Grand Hotel" "Railway Hotel" etc. etc. While some of these places offer accommodation, they would not be considered "hotels" in the international sense of the word but rather they would be considered "pubs". Indeed, the common Australian term for these venues, regardless of name, is "Pub" although "Hotel" is also sometimes used.
This has lead to Category:Hotels in Australia and its subcategories containing both hotels in the international sense (i.e. "Sheraton Hotel", Mercure Hotel", "Holiday Inn" etc.) and Australian pubs. Of course some places like Lorne Hotel are both hotels and pubs! The subcategories also reflect this confusion with some called "Hotels in X" and others called "Pubs in X". See also Category:Pubs in Australia which duplicates somewhat the existing "Hotels in Australia" structure and content.
While the meanings are linked historically in Australia and some places may be both hotels and pubs, there is a clear differentiation between places that are primarily accommodation providers and primarily drinking establishments and the commons categorisation should reflect this. How this should happen, I am not sure - hopefully this discussion will help clarify the matter. --Mattinbgn/talk 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why not categorise pubs (drinking places) as pubs, and categorise hotels (accomodation places) as hotels? If there are places where they are significantly both then can we categorise them twice - as pubs and hotels? --165.228.157.70 01:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The legal basis of the separation in Western Australia (fellow eds please correct me if I get this wrong) is that accommodation free drinking locations are known as Taverns, while accommodation utilising locations are Hotels - I fail to see where the usage of Pub has any credence in such circumstances - but would be intrigued to see where all this is going SatuSuro (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this is something which will always be problematic, you will always have "hotels" which are both pubs and hotels (locally [Wagga Wagga] they are the Victoria Hotel, Romanos Hotel, Union Club Hotel, Palm and Pawn Hotel, ect) but then you get the pubs which use the hotel name even though they have no accommodation (e.g. Black Swan Hotel) then you have hotels which may have a "bar" but not a "pub" (e.g. Pavilion Hotel). The other issue is where should Taverns (e.g. Thomas Blamey Taven) be placed? I've not yet made up my mind as this is rather a complex issue. Bidgee (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- SatuSuro is correct in respect to Western Australia - under the Liquor Licensing requirements a Hotel licence relates to premises which permits the sale & consumption of liquor on the premises, where accomodation is provided and a Tavern is a premises which permits the sale & consumption of liquor but doesn't have accomodation. It is further complicated with the introduction of a Small Bar which is a premises which permits the sale & consumption of liquor but with a maximum capacity of 120 people at any one time. I would suggest that "Pubs", "Taverns" and "Bars" should almost be grouped in one category and "Hotels" in another but acknowledge that some "Pubs" can also be categorised as "Hotels" due to their historic nature. Dingo dude (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- It may suit WA but would it suit the other states and territories? Bidgee (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good question - I simply pointed out the difference as I know it for WA - as to whether there is a one size fits all solution for Australia I havent the foggiest - I dont know the licensing laws of the other states - somehow pubs seem a problematic category and I know my personal preference would be to rid of it - but hey - hope someone has a better handle on all this than I have SatuSuro (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- All can be under a main licensed establishments in foo with a description/definition of this category contains establishments licensed to supply liquor and or provide accommdation as defined by the xxxx licensing act that can then cover wineries, breweries, distilleries etc as separate categories as well all of which can cross cat to appropriate national//international equivellants. As long as each category is as defined by an act then it should standup to futur discussions. Gnangarra 14:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the point is being missed here. We want categories that are useful. The natural meanings of public house and hotel/motel/inn/accommodation are distinct so we should be using distinct categories. Yes, plenty of places fall under both categories and that's fine -- they get to be in 2+ categories. A category called something like Category:Public houses in South Australia should be obvious. The only problem that remains is the nomenclature to be used for the accommodation category. In the interest of making it as simple as possible I would avoid the use of "hotel" (since there are motels and inns deserving the cat) and call it something like Category:Public accommodation in South Australia. Donama (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I havent missed the point I've siad each state uses different definitions and terms these places are defined under a state governent act of some kind so the naming of state categories should be that which is consistant/defined with the act. Gnangarra 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it is practical to expect contributors to undertake a search of the relevant licensing laws merely to categorise a photograph. To my mind at least, it is not so important that categories are legally rigorous as it is that they are useful for the purposes of Commons users. If I am looking for photographs of Australian pubs I am not really interested in the differences in licencing laws between states (or even between Australia and other countries) I just want to find photographs of what are commonly called pubs. I agree with Domana that "Hotel" is not a useful term for this purpose. -- Mattinbgn/talk 07:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I havent missed the point I've siad each state uses different definitions and terms these places are defined under a state governent act of some kind so the naming of state categories should be that which is consistant/defined with the act. Gnangarra 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the point is being missed here. We want categories that are useful. The natural meanings of public house and hotel/motel/inn/accommodation are distinct so we should be using distinct categories. Yes, plenty of places fall under both categories and that's fine -- they get to be in 2+ categories. A category called something like Category:Public houses in South Australia should be obvious. The only problem that remains is the nomenclature to be used for the accommodation category. In the interest of making it as simple as possible I would avoid the use of "hotel" (since there are motels and inns deserving the cat) and call it something like Category:Public accommodation in South Australia. Donama (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm late to the party as usual but my 2¢ is that a hotels category isn't very helpful. Definitions apparently vary and users of the categories cannot be expected to know the differences between hotels, pubs and taverns. Moondyne (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, we have Category:Hotels and pubs in Australia inbetween. --JuTa 02:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As a topical category it shall include only BW photography (art), thus should be renamed "Black and white portrait photography". All images should be merged into "Black and white photographs" (tag type category denoting media type). ELEKHHT 06:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- This CfD is result of the preliminary discussion at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/03#Duplicating the whole category system ?
- Accordingly it is proposed that all subcategories of "Black and white photographs of ..." type shall be renamed and/or merged. --ELEKHHT 06:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Added:
- Category:Black and white photographs of gardens
- Category:Black and white photographs of landscapes
- Category:Black and white photographs of parks
- Category:Black and white photographs of plants
- The categories BW photographs of gardens, landscapes, parks and plans as their descriptions state also mix topical categories with media type. If any images belong to Landscape photography those could be moved to "Black and white landscape photography" otherwise merge. --ELEKHHT 07:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that it is a good idea to mix up photography (techniques, tools, technology) and photographs. I oppose against a move to cats like "Black and white landscape photography" which is against the commons (modular, extensible) naming habits, "Black and white photography of landscapes" for techniques, "Black and white photographs of landscapes" for pictures is more correct. --Foroa (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the last part of Elekhh's suggestions was just for cases where there would be any illustrations suitable for this. For these, we might want to add "technique" to the category name. We could also hold back this part until we actually got some suitable illustrations. -- Docu at 12:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I meant, thanks for clarifying. --ELEKHHT 20:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the last part of Elekhh's suggestions was just for cases where there would be any illustrations suitable for this. For these, we might want to add "technique" to the category name. We could also hold back this part until we actually got some suitable illustrations. -- Docu at 12:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that it is a good idea to mix up photography (techniques, tools, technology) and photographs. I oppose against a move to cats like "Black and white landscape photography" which is against the commons (modular, extensible) naming habits, "Black and white photography of landscapes" for techniques, "Black and white photographs of landscapes" for pictures is more correct. --Foroa (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds by creating Category:Black and white photography by subject and adding all the categories above plus more. I think there are some indisputably useful subcategories of Category:Black and white photography that aren't subject to debate but those in the former category are not photographs about B&W photography so much as examples of B&W photography. I can see both sides of the argument on whether or not they are useful categories, but I thought I would separate them clearly. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
A lot of people is using category like black and white photographs of so i propose a small revolution
- Not to mix photographs and photography
- Rename category:black and white photographs in category:black and white photographs (flat list) or category:black and white photographs (media type) or another similar thingummy. Same treatment for category:monochrome photographs.
- Create again category:black and white photographs as root for all category:black and white photographs of... categories
- Rename category:photographs in category:particular photographs or category:exemplificative photographs or another more suitable just to be clear that category:photographs is not like Category:paintings and people photos go under category:people
--Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept, all of them; heavily filled up usefull categories. --JuTa 02:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a concise English alternative to de:Eisgang, or should it stay under a German name? ~ NVO (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Whats about "ice drift"? Drift ice means "Treibeis". --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- There exist categories Drift ice and Pack ice but I'm not sure about meaning nuances. --ŠJů (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Eisgang, in my understanding, is strictly for rivers in spring. It's mostly about drifting downstream, but the real fun starts when ice piles up into a natural dam, starting a major flood. en:Drift ice, on the other hand, describes primarily open seas. NVO (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's obvious that English Wikipedia misses out this theme. But according to Google searching, "drift ice" or "ice drift" is used also for river ice during spring thaw. Maybe, some river subcategory should be created. --ŠJů (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Eisgang, in my understanding, is strictly for rivers in spring. It's mostly about drifting downstream, but the real fun starts when ice piles up into a natural dam, starting a major flood. en:Drift ice, on the other hand, describes primarily open seas. NVO (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- There exist categories Drift ice and Pack ice but I'm not sure about meaning nuances. --ŠJů (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept, when we have an english description, we have to live with another language. --JuTa 02:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Empty category moved to Category:Cygnus olor (juvenile swimming) by Winterkind with the following comment: "there is not swan subspecies called C. olor swimming, therefore move" :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- As Commons is used by People who may have a problem with english language it may be a good idea, to separate species name an english parts of the category name by a bracked, so that one can see that no subspecies named "C. olor swimming" is meant with the category name. In this case every single category concerning swimming birds should be renamed accordingly. See also: Category:Cygnus olor swimming --Kersti (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Up to now not all categories concerning swimming birds are moved. I didn't really wantz this change, but it would have been ok if the whole work had been done. Like this it is not a good idea. Therefore I think now, that this change should be revertet as almost all categories concerning swimming birds are without these brackets! --Kersti (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Reirected, Just a duplicate category. --JuTa 02:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Industrial locomotives of Britain
- Category:Industrial diesel locomotives of Britain
- Category:Industrial electric locomotives of Britain
- Category:Industrial steam locomotives of Britain
I propose to rename these categories to "... of the United Kingdom", eventually subcategories "... of England" can be created.
Most of categories of Britain are redirected to categories of United Kingdom, the category Category:Great Britain contains no similar subcategories. Themes of United Kingdom (excluding rivers) are divided - if they are - by its internal countries (England, Walles, Scotland, Northern Ireland), not by islands.See the whole category tree Transport in the United Kingdom, Rail transport in the United Kingdom, Rolling stock of the United Kingdom, Locomotives of the United Kingdom. See also Category talk:Industrial electric locomotives of Britain. ŠJů (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Rail transport of Great Britain should be kept separate from rail transport of Nothern Ireland (and both can then be sub-categories of Rail transport of the United Kingdom). GB & NI use different gauges (NI uses the same broad gauge as the Republic of Ireland), this is a distinction worth keeping for railway matters.
- There is little benefit to creating sub-categories for England, Scotland & Wales. Possibly so for geographically distinct features such as stations or bridges, but not for operating companies or rolling stock. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Rename to '...of the United Kingdom' and then create the necessary sub-categories when they become overpopulated. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (The proposal corrected. --ŠJů (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC) )
- Given that they're GB, not NI (we have only a handful of NI images), then why not do it right instead? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure that just industrial railways have different gauge in GB and NI? If you want to propose some categorization restructuring, the complex category tree of UK should be revised. It is not a good solution to have 4 categories incompatible with categories of all other themes. Btw., as you can see, a standard name for GB should be "... of Great Britain", not only "... of Britain". --ŠJů (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, of course not - which is why I wrote "Rail transport of Great Britain". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- This hyper pedantry about the difference between UK and GB really has no practical use, no one took much notice when it just affected industrial railways, but now the problem has spread to other locomotives creating an unnavigable mess, NI has it's own subcategory and isn't bothering UK cats much, support rename back to 'of the United Kingdom' Oxyman (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Oxyman. Vote for 'of the United Kingdom' --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- This hyper pedantry about the difference between UK and GB really has no practical use, no one took much notice when it just affected industrial railways, but now the problem has spread to other locomotives creating an unnavigable mess, NI has it's own subcategory and isn't bothering UK cats much, support rename back to 'of the United Kingdom' Oxyman (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, of course not - which is why I wrote "Rail transport of Great Britain". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure that just industrial railways have different gauge in GB and NI? If you want to propose some categorization restructuring, the complex category tree of UK should be revised. It is not a good solution to have 4 categories incompatible with categories of all other themes. Btw., as you can see, a standard name for GB should be "... of Great Britain", not only "... of Britain". --ŠJů (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Given that they're GB, not NI (we have only a handful of NI images), then why not do it right instead? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Rename to '...of the United Kingdom' and then create the necessary sub-categories when they become overpopulated. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (The proposal corrected. --ŠJů (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC) )
Moved, and redirected. Per discussion. --JuTa 03:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
duplicated for Category:The defeat of Mara which I have just seen after crated this category) Xiengyod (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa 28 March 2011. --Achim (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)