Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2011/10
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive October 2011
Wrong name Butterflies in art Léna (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 12:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Name takes some thought to parse. Rename to something like "Post-World War II depictions of Schutzstaffel" or "Schutzstaffel in post World War II depictions". Kramer Associates (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I like version 1.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Renaming to Category:Post-World War II depictions of Schutzstaffel in 5... 4... 3... --Kramer Associates (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Ambiguous category, renamed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Funeral_wreaths_in_art Léna (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa -- Common Good (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Name should be in english - "Gaia Hypothesis" Kramer Associates (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please show formal references to the English name. --Foroa (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Category names should be in English per Commons:Categories#Category_names. The En Wikipedia page is at w:Gaia hypothesis. w:James Lovelock is English ("l'écologiste anglais James Lovelock"). --Kramer Associates (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Moved to Category:Gaia hypothesis --Foroa (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Category names should be in English per Commons:Categories#Category_names. The En Wikipedia page is at w:Gaia hypothesis. w:James Lovelock is English ("l'écologiste anglais James Lovelock"). --Kramer Associates (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Discussion appears to have been closed with the move by Foroa - Kramer Associates (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
to delete error GFreihalter (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. You could have given a reason, though :) --rimshottalk 13:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
A category for uncategorised things? These images should simply be in Category:Mosques; this isn't a dated maintenance category like the subcategories of Category:Media needing categories. ~ Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Move contents to Category:Unidentified mosques and delete it? Multichill (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Unidentified mosques. --rimshottalk 13:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This category is not correct according the Commons categorization practice: This category is intended to collect images of the Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Allison which differs optically not at all with the "normal" bus, the Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid. The same with Category:Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Vossloh Kiepe. 80.187.106.124 20:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- See Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Allison in Solaris Bus & Coach website. It's official model name. Don't existing "normal" Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid bus. This is bus models family. Models have another hybrid system and top parts. Existing "Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Allison Mk1" (engine in center bus) and "Mk2" (engine in rear part) with another top parts. Do you don't see it? In models: "Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Vossloh Kiepe" and "Solaris Urbino 18 DIWAhybrid" is the same. "Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid MetroStyle" (for BHNS in Paris) have completely new body. Marek Banach (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. This type of bus is apparently existing. According to Marek Banach, a "Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Allison" can be visually differentiated with a "Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Vossloh Kiepe". --High Contrast (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This category is not correct according the Commons categorization practice: This category is intended to collect images of the Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Vossloh Kiepe which differs optically not at all with the "normal" bus, the Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid. The same with Category:Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Allison. 80.187.106.124 20:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- See Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Vossloh Kiepe in Solaris Bus & Coach website. It's official model name. Don't existing "normal" Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid bus. This is bus models family. Models have another hybrid system and top parts. Do you don't see it? "Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid MetroStyle" (first for BHNS in Paris) have completely new body too. Marek Banach (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. This type of bus is apparently existing. According to Marek Banach, a "Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Allison" can be visually differentiated with a "Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid Vossloh Kiepe". --High Contrast (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The right name of this category is: Alte Bleiche, Rüte Schofför (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 13:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
because i need to learn and see the drawinds 121.54.58.154 15:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- closed, nonsense request apparently --:bdk: 15:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Empty category. From my view, no need of this Quedel (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- This wasn't empty. CoA for this town is in more images. Skim (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now not-empty. Whyever the files (which was added only one hour before) wasn't visible here. I withdrawn. --Quedel (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
closed, reason does not apply anymore, nominator has withdrawn the discussion request. --Saibo (Δ) 17:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
проблемы виртуального пространства "материальных точек" 92.240.216.138 04:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- closed, nonsense request apparently --:bdk: 04:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
weniger ist besser 217.235.183.45 16:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- "less is better" - what will the IP tell us? But what means the "Wiki" in it's name? If no reason can get from the drawer, renaming could be done. --Quedel (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Invalid rational by the nominator. Thus kept as there is no basis for discussion. --High Contrast (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
to delete nonsense GFreihalter (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Christ and the Tribute Money 87.115.88.159 19:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- This apparently ill-formed discussion was started by 87.115.88.159 (talk · contribs) who does not explain the problem or propose a solution. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - nonsense rationale. --Simone 06:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Closed, no reason for a category discussion given. If you want to propose an image as valued image, take a look at Commons:Valued images and follow the instructions given there. --rimshottalk 23:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
empty and thus redundunt Muhandes (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
188.52.93.12 19:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose imho absolutely no reasons given for discussion, ref. Category:Multilingual signs by country, Roland 20:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Closed, no reason for discussion given. --rimshottalk 23:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
att 168.103.236.134 03:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is there anything you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 12:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Closed, no reason for discussion given. --rimshottalk 23:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Redundant--there's only one Amtrak station in Syracuse. Mackensen (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Sorry, i didn't know it was only one Amtrak station. Please note that this category was created by me only to move its content from the "Category:Amtrack stations in Syracuse, New York" (correct spelling), created in january by another user. Anyway, here it exist the Category:William F. Walsh Regional Transportation Center, that in the article at enwiki is listed on the Amtrak stations of NY. Also en:Syracuse (Amtrak station) redirects there (the redir was created in 2005). Concluding: this category could be IMHO deleted or, at least, redirected to the cat about the William F. Walsh RTC. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Blue hour Joachimstolz (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept, bad faith nomination. --Simone 20:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Awkward name: this should be changed to Category:France FOP cases resulting in deletion Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Or we could adopt the same pattern than Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests : Category:France FOP cases/kept & Category:France FOP cases/deleted. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Those also sound better. Anything to get rid of this very odd name. Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Renamed into Category:France FOP cases/deleted; sister categories are now Category:France FOP cases/kept and Category:France FOP cases/pending. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Just name is Pier Christiaansloot and not Pier Christiaanssloot see: http://www.skutsjehistorie.nl/doc/doc_25.pdf Gouwenaar (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, as empty. --rimshottalk 23:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Категорию надо бы удалить, т.к. заменена на другую с правильным переводом Wolkodlak (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Romaine. -- Common Good (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
May be deleted - replaced with Category:South African Class 14E and all files recategorised accordingly André Kritzinger (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 23:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
May be deleted - replaced with Category:South African Class 14E1 and all files recategorised accordingly André Kritzinger (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 23:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Category should be moved to Category:Ravenstein, Netherlands, because there is another Ravenstein in Germany. It's category Category:Ravenstein, Germany could perhaps then moved to this lemma, because the city in germany is an autonomous muncipality and therefore more important than the town in the netherlands. SteMicha (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation -- Common Good (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Kategorie sollte nach Category:Illingen (Württemberg) umbenannt werden, weil es noch eine zweite Gemeinde "Illingen" im Saarland gibt. Zudem würde eine Angleichung an den Gemeindeartikel Sinn machen. SteMicha (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Made into a disambiguation page. This should facilitate finding all of the Illingens. --rimshottalk 23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Category should be moved to Category:Eurasburg (Schwaben) because there is another muncipality, Category:Eurasburg (Upper Bavaria), and no reason to give one of them the lemma without bracket. SteMicha (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Support --Foroa (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)- Support --Moros (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation -- Common Good (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
These are not unicorns, but auerochs Pjacobi (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, this relief is just a side view of a bull – male cattle, aurochs (Bos primigenius) likely – so that only one horn is shown (and only one ear, too). Of course there are (some more or less) esoteric websites which interpret this relief as a unicorn, but that isn't the common academic interpretation. I would suggest moving this category to Category:Reliefs of bulls on the Ishtar Gate therefore. Note: File descriptions have to be adapted accordingly (someone added "unicorn" to all 10 files, partly overwriting original descriptions). Btw, I guess this misinterpretation is based on confusion of different reliefs. There's another animal on the Ishtar Gate, that also has some horn thingy, and is commonly interpreted as a "dragon", see File:Ishtar Gate Dragon.JPG. --:bdk: 17:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The following 10 files moved from Category:Reliefs of unicorns on the Ishtar Gate to Category:Reliefs of bulls on the Ishtar Gate, because there are no unicorns in these files.
- File:Berlín - Pergamon - Porta d'Ishtar - Ur.JPG
- File:Pergamon Museum Berlin 2007080.jpg
- File:Pergamon Museum Berlin 2007081.jpg
- File:Pergamon Museum Berlin 2007083.jpg
- File:Pergamon Museum Berlin 2007084.jpg
- File:Ish-tar Gate detail.jpg
- File:Pergamonmuseum Ishtartor 03.jpg
- File:Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek - Ishtar-Tor.jpg
- File:Ishtar Gate Dragon.JPG
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1229.jpg
--59.171.198.69 05:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, moved to Category:Reliefs of bulls on the Ishtar Gate. --88.72.215.189 20:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
(moved to Category:RJ Class 162)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: All files moved to Category:RJ Class 162 - standard form of the rolling stock category name --PetrS. (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: RegioJet has no its own specific classification system, the number "162" is not some "RJ class". Although "ČD class" can have some reasons in their history as unitary national operator, "RJ class" is not a suitable category name for categories of RJ rolling stock sorted by the official Czech classification. --ŠJů (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding standardness of the discussed category names, the current Czech national official classification system of rolling stock types is standardly used as "ČD classes" in category names at Commons still. There exist only 2 special categories of specific type of any Czech non-ČD railway operator: Category:ČSD Class U 46.1 is categorized under JHMD operator and Category:ČD Class 184 under Rolling stock of SDKD. No "JHMD Class", no "SDKD Class". The category RJ Class 162 is the first and single category of this form and the first subcategory by operator within the Czech national type category. There exists no consensual standard how to name such categories. I propose to rename all "ČD classes" categories to "CZ UIC classes" (according to List of UIC country codes - bare "CZ class" would be very ambiguous, without clear relation to rolling stock), and to create ČD subcategories for every such type category - so Category:CZ UIC Class 162 with subcategories Category:CZ UIC Class 162 of ČD and Category:CZ UIC Class 162 of RegioJet. (The usage of abbreviations of operator names can be discussed moreover.) --ŠJů (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 12:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
WikiMedia Enterprise Project Collaboration and lack of oversight re real life applications and misuse (me for over 6 years!) 24.130.86.30 23:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Er... Sorry? Jean-Fred (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Not done, no reason for discussing the category given. You can use the Village Pump for any discussion that is not related to a particular category. --rimshottalk 21:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This category badly needs restructuring
Here's what I propose:
- Merge everything from Category:Fur skins into Category:Furs, leaving Category:Fur skins as a redirect
- Create Category:Furs by species
- Rename "X fur-skins" into subcats of Category:Furs by species called "Furs of X" or "X furs" with the odd-ball "Bearskins" etc. leaving redirects as needed
- Move "X (clothing)" into "Furs of X"
- Possibly create Category:Pelts by species with "Pelts of X" or "X pelts" subcats (Pelt in this case meaning a hide not cut into a shape)
- Additional work will probably need to be done
--Kramer Associates (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- As the creator and author of most of the fur related categories I must depend the native English speaking co-worker that they will do it right. I am shure, that I named it not optimal. Thank you for any help. --Kürschner (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Since there seem to be no objections, I've gone ahead as outlined above --Kramer Associates (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Until a day or so ago, the subcategories for each country followed a number of different naming formats. Some used dashes, others used hyphens, and some used spaces. And a small subset of older subcats (primarily sub-categories related to Germany) still use a completely different naming format. So, for example, categories followed any one of the following main formats:
Category:Australia - United States relations ("Convention 1")
Category:Czech Republic–Poland relations ("Convention 2")
Category:Political relations of Germany and Morocco ("Convention 3")
The only consistentcy in the naming conventions was that countries were almost always listed alphabetically.
So as to achieve consistency, User:Foroa recently changed a bunch of the categories to Convention 1. User:russavia is now quite concerned, as he believes Convention 1 is incorrect, and he is frustrated that the change to the subcats pertaining to Russia has broken 300+ links from en-wp. Please see User talk:Foroa#Russian bilateral relations categories for the discussion. Russavia asked for a wider discussion of the issue, so I am initiating it here. The objective would be to settle on a standard naming convention for these categories.
Personally, I do not care whether we use hyphens, dashes or spaces. Given the differing views one often encounters on Wikipedia surrounding the use of dashes and hyphens, my personal preference would be to ditch hyphens/dashes altogether (e.g. Category:Australia and United States relations ("Convention 4")). But I would be happy at the end of the day with any consistent approach. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I rather like Convention 3. I don't like (for example) that "Russian-American relations" was changed to "Russia-American relations", a locution no native speaker would use. - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned, Convention 3 is unnecessarily narrow, as most of these categories also cover military, cultural, trade, etc. relations. Arguably, everything is politics, but you could also argue the opposite. I'm not sure how the verbose Political relations of Germany and Morocco is better than the simpler Germany and Morocco relations, or even Relations of Germany and Morocco. As for Russia-American relations, I agree that's terrible. We should stick to plain country names, e.g. Russia-United States relations, otherwise you get into adjective quirks like Franco-American relations, that may only be common in some variants of English (and may be odd to non-native speakers) and consistency gets tossed out the window. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- The other problem with using adjectives is that "Russian-American relations" could refer to both the bilateral relationship between Russia and the United States, as well as relationships within the community of Americans of Russian descent. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned, Convention 3 is unnecessarily narrow, as most of these categories also cover military, cultural, trade, etc. relations. Arguably, everything is politics, but you could also argue the opposite. I'm not sure how the verbose Political relations of Germany and Morocco is better than the simpler Germany and Morocco relations, or even Relations of Germany and Morocco. As for Russia-American relations, I agree that's terrible. We should stick to plain country names, e.g. Russia-United States relations, otherwise you get into adjective quirks like Franco-American relations, that may only be common in some variants of English (and may be odd to non-native speakers) and consistency gets tossed out the window. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
We have the ability to utilise ndashes on Commons, and their use conforms to correct English standards. Hence, we would have:
- Category:Abkhazia–Russia relations
- Category:Russia – South Ossetia relations
- Category:Guinea-Bissau–Russia relations
Anything else can be dealt with as a redirect. I can't think of any reason as to why we shouldn't use ndash correctly on Commons. A redirect from Category:Abkhazia-Russia relations to Category:Abkhazia–Russia relations can easily be created, if needed. Hotcats of course make the process of categorisation extremely easy when using ndashes.
Political relations in the category name is not all-encompassing as it would omit cultural relations, economic relations, military relations, and a host of other types of relations which make up a bilateral relationship. russavia (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you are proposing en-dashes with no spacing? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly recommend to avoid en-dashes (and other non-keyboard symbols) in category names. --ŠJů (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Btw., Czech language use hyphens in adjective form ("česko-ruské vztahy") but en-dashes in substantive form ("vztahy Česko–Rusko"). How are English rules? Irrespective of this, category names and page names should use simplified typography to avoid special symbols. --ŠJů (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
My 2 cents:
- it's worth being internally consistent within Commons if there's no good reason for inconsistency. It makes life a little bit easier in the long run.
- it's worth considering what major Wikipedias do. A quick look suggests Spanish and German use hyphens, French uses a phrasing that avoids symbols, whilst English uses em dashes, following the convention established for related bilateral relation articles. None of them use any specifying words - it's just "relations". All except German use nouns, not adjectives, in the naming.
- non-standard symbols should be avoided if possible. That means hyphens, or a phrasing that avoids symbols.
My conclusion: use the phrasing "Relations of X and Y". This has the advantage of avoiding the naming variations that you can get with adjectives creeping in, as well as passionate debates about whether it should be a hyphen, em-dash, or en-dash. Avoiding adjectives also makes the subject slightly clearer, I think, especially for non-native speakers, by emphasising that it's relations between states which is the subject. Rd232 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Rd232's sentiments and note that the new scheme of "X - Y relations" is almost identical to his/her proposal "Relations of X and Y", so I see no need to change. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. Rd232 is proposing to do away with hyphens and dashes altogether, so his proposal would seem very different from "X - Y relations".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I might also say that Category:Australia - United States relations looks funny. Why not simply Category:Australia-United States relations. I don't get the point of the spacing in the category name. If functionality is the key here, then surely spacing is non-functional, and makes categorising even more cumbersome. russavia (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- The space is needed in case one or both of the countries involved already use a hyphen in their name, e.g. Category:Bilateral relations of Guinea-Bissau: Category:Brazil - Guinea-Bissau relations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this is needed. If we were to adhere to endash usage, we would have Category:Guinea-Bissau–Russia relations. So that category would be Category:Brazil–Guinea-Bissau relations. It appears, to me at least, that there has been no thought put into any of this, but rather a miscontrued attempt has been made to standardise upon a non-existent standard. russavia (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- If the naming convention relies on editors using both hyphens and dashes, and distinguishing between proper usage of both, then that convinces me that we should ditch dashes altogether and go with some variation of Convention 4. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think the English Wikipedia eventually agreed that by best typographical convention, it should be an eM-dash, not eN-dash. Even if that's actually true, I don't think it's worth the hassle of using a non-standard symbol. Rd232 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- The English Wikipedia does not use eM-dashes as you describe, but eN-dashes; see en:MOS:NDASH where it proscribes eN-dashes for to be used "in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". Example: en:Category:Germany – United States relations; but there are also inconsistenies, e.g. en:Category:Bilateral relations of Australia where hyphens are also used, but never eM-dashes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- My bad, I got them mixed up. Shows how much I care about this :P Rd232 (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The English Wikipedia does not use eM-dashes as you describe, but eN-dashes; see en:MOS:NDASH where it proscribes eN-dashes for to be used "in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". Example: en:Category:Germany – United States relations; but there are also inconsistenies, e.g. en:Category:Bilateral relations of Australia where hyphens are also used, but never eM-dashes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this is needed. If we were to adhere to endash usage, we would have Category:Guinea-Bissau–Russia relations. So that category would be Category:Brazil–Guinea-Bissau relations. It appears, to me at least, that there has been no thought put into any of this, but rather a miscontrued attempt has been made to standardise upon a non-existent standard. russavia (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, can anyone show previous discussions which have done away with endash on Commons, because that is also going to be useful in such discussions. russavia (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is exactly why I suggested not using symbols at all. Experience shows that debates on variations of the symbols go on forever and create a large amount of ill will, for very little benefit. Let's just not do that. Rd232 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think the original move from "X – Y relations" (spaced eN-dash) and "X–Y relations" (unspaced eN-dash) to "X - Y relations" (spaced hyphen) was unnecessary (what was gained?) and should have been discussed before being implemented. But now that's done, much of this discussion seems pointless to me; using eN-dashes in category names is somewhat awkward and the current naming scheme avoids them. Engaging now in another renaming exercise to some form without a hyphen seems pointless. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- On Commons, we are trying to avoid dashes because it is a source of many problems and creates substantial category merge and move work. Why ?
- 1. The Dash character
- The dash character is only available in a number of countries, many countries have no dash key, and I suspect that the dash character is not identical in all countries. So, already as a matter of courtesy, it should be avoided.
- One could argue that people without dash character could use the wiki editor to insert them, but there are three different ones. I challenge people to discriminate the 3 different dash characters and the hyphen that I inserted in a random way:
- In code as in the edit window:
–—−——–−--—−, "–—−——–−--—−" in normal print it is better but still not easy. - Stating that one can solve the problem through redirects is not realistic with thousand categories with many variations possible. Moreover, hotcat is only used for a guesstilated 10 to 15 % of the categorisation work.
- 2. The Dash spacing
- It seems to be difficult to get the spaces around the dash right. Two examples: the examples of russavia above are using two different variations. In En:Category:Bilateral relations, they are mixed up around fifty-fifty, so unless they agree upon one single standard, they will keep renaming those categories to get it harmonised in one country, thereby breaking it in another country.
- 3. Commons naming conventions
- Commons uses predominantly category names like <Topic> <Qualifier(s)>. So if we would apply that here, categories should be named "Bilateral relations of countryA and CountryB".
- I don't think that the prefix political is needed as this is the majoriry of the relations. But I think that in the long term, we might have financial, economic, artistic, cultural ... relations. So for readability, this should come in the front of the categtory name, not somewhere near the end or in the middle.
- Another advantage of such a syntax is that it can be extended for things with long names, for relations between states, cities, museums, organisations, agencies... --Foroa (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The general consensus seems to agree with your option 3 (Sju, Rd232, myself and now you all favour some variation of Convention 4, while Michael Bednarek appears to favour Convention 1, Russavia favours Convention 2, and Jmabel! favours Convention 3). The format you have proposed is largely the same as what Rd232 suggested, and I agree with it too. Do we need the word "bilateral"? Could it just be "Relations of countryA and CountryB"? I'm not tremendously opposed to using the word "bilateral", but I thought I would ask the question in the interest of brevity. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- "bilateral" seems redundant to me. I'm not greatly opposed, as it may make things clearer to some people, but I'd do without. Rd232 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Foroa? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Subject to Foroa's thoughts on the word "bilateral", it looks like this discussion is wound up unless anyone else has some thoughts. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The nice thing about bilateral is that they will not be expanded to tri- or more lateral relations (Benelux, other cooperations on country borders), but I have no real preference. You decide. --Foroa (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it is needed. To use your example, I think a category named Category:Relations of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg would, and should, be renamed Category:Relations among Benelux member states or something similar. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Benelux example would be simply Category:Benelux -- because Benelux is already the relationship between the 3 countries. russavia (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it is needed. To use your example, I think a category named Category:Relations of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg would, and should, be renamed Category:Relations among Benelux member states or something similar. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The nice thing about bilateral is that they will not be expanded to tri- or more lateral relations (Benelux, other cooperations on country borders), but I have no real preference. You decide. --Foroa (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- "bilateral" seems redundant to me. I'm not greatly opposed, as it may make things clearer to some people, but I'd do without. Rd232 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The general consensus seems to agree with your option 3 (Sju, Rd232, myself and now you all favour some variation of Convention 4, while Michael Bednarek appears to favour Convention 1, Russavia favours Convention 2, and Jmabel! favours Convention 3). The format you have proposed is largely the same as what Rd232 suggested, and I agree with it too. Do we need the word "bilateral"? Could it just be "Relations of countryA and CountryB"? I'm not tremendously opposed to using the word "bilateral", but I thought I would ask the question in the interest of brevity. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think the original move from "X – Y relations" (spaced eN-dash) and "X–Y relations" (unspaced eN-dash) to "X - Y relations" (spaced hyphen) was unnecessary (what was gained?) and should have been discussed before being implemented. But now that's done, much of this discussion seems pointless to me; using eN-dashes in category names is somewhat awkward and the current naming scheme avoids them. Engaging now in another renaming exercise to some form without a hyphen seems pointless. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can I ask why Category:Relations of Afghanistan and Russia and other categories are already being moved, without this discussion even being finalised? There has been no final consensus here. And frankly, I am now going to have to go and do another 170 fixes to incoming links, and I am not happy about that. What is going on here?!? russavia (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Skeezix1000, before issuing commands for Siebot, can we please finalise this discussion first, because I can't see that there is any yet agreed upon formulation -- and to begin changing them without finalising this discussion first is somewhat out of process, I hope you can understand. Let's agree on a final formulation, and then we can do moves and the like. russavia (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would also ask that old categories not simply be deleted. There's no real reason that they can't stay as redirects. Or am I mistaken here? russavia (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course there is consensus. The majority of contributors agree on the approach, the discussion wound down, you haven't made any comments for almost three weeks, and I asked several days ago if anyone else had any further comments. I am not sure why you expect the discussion to stay on hold until you've given your blessing. As for redirects, I have no interest in getting stuck between the pro-redirect and no-redirect camps, but I am happy to leave redirects for the Russia-related categories, if that helps with you with the incoming links. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, my apologies for not posting earlier, as I have been busy doing other things. There are several issues here. Firstly, as an admin, I would never close a discussion in which I have been involved. That's just me. But the main point, is that the format that category naming should take has not yet gained any consensus. Above, in relation to whether to include "Bilateral" or not has basically been left to "you decide" --- that is not consensus. Individuals deciding is what has brought us here in the first place. Discussion between 3 or 4 editors -- one of whom prefers conforming with English language conventions (me) and three others aren't yet reading off the same page as to whether to include qualifiers (such as "bilateral") or not, is not any sort of consensus. Can we please get some sort of clear actual consensus on what actual form any categorisation should take, and then we can proceed from there. And perhaps get someone who is not exactly involved to close the discussion. And then we can proceed to rename articles if it is indeed required. russavia (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course there is consensus. The majority of contributors agree on the approach, the discussion wound down, you haven't made any comments for almost three weeks, and I asked several days ago if anyone else had any further comments. I am not sure why you expect the discussion to stay on hold until you've given your blessing. As for redirects, I have no interest in getting stuck between the pro-redirect and no-redirect camps, but I am happy to leave redirects for the Russia-related categories, if that helps with you with the incoming links. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- As a native English speaker, "Relations of X and Y" can also indicate to me that there are other parties to this relationship. As a native English speaker, "Relations between X and Y" makes more sense? Again apologies for this late note, I've been busy with other things. russavia (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are right that "Relations of X and Y" is wider than "Relations between X and Y", but I don't think that this matters. The first form was already used for German relations and avoids the slight complication of the use of "between", a rather seldom used keyword on Commons.
- There seems to be a consensus that the presence of the word bilateral in the name is not really important, so I guess that simplicity should prevail. --Foroa (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh geez, Russavia, you are making this as painful as possible. This has hardly been a contentious issue, and I moved forward after specifically asking if anyone had any further objections to the solution on the table. So please avoid lecturing me on what you would have done or what you think I should have done. Seven people contributed ther thoughts, more than half agreed to the solution (the others split evenly among the other options), the discussion wound down, and the remaining issue was whether or not to include Foroa's suggestion of the word "bilateral", and he indicated that he was happy for others to decide. That is a clear resolution, even if you don't care for it.
As for the word "between", I am not sure that it matters or adds much of anything. Personally, I don't care either way, but I am happy to hold off for a few days to see if anyone else does.Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I held off for more than a few days, as I said I would. There are no objections to the consensus, and there does not appear to be anyone else who feels we need to add the word "between". This does not appear to be a contentious issue. The finality and consistency to the category names will assist Russavia with his incoming links, and as I said I will leave redirects for the Russia-related categories. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh geez, Russavia, you are making this as painful as possible. This has hardly been a contentious issue, and I moved forward after specifically asking if anyone had any further objections to the solution on the table. So please avoid lecturing me on what you would have done or what you think I should have done. Seven people contributed ther thoughts, more than half agreed to the solution (the others split evenly among the other options), the discussion wound down, and the remaining issue was whether or not to include Foroa's suggestion of the word "bilateral", and he indicated that he was happy for others to decide. That is a clear resolution, even if you don't care for it.
The move of all the categories to the consensus format is largely complete, without any complaints or problems of which I am aware. Thanks to Foroa for doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Extremely confusing category with more confusing subcategories: "czechoslovak produced T-xyz tanks in czechoslovak service" is a sad highlight. I think the only person that understands that mess is the creator of this chaos. Please delete and create an article on Commons that handles with such details 79.237.163.206 08:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: weir category tree. Inconsistent. Photos should be collected in an article on Commons. This would be advantageous considering descriptions and explanations. --High Contrast (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I simplified about several hundred BSicons, so what's the sense of this category?!? a×pdeHello! 19:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- The category should offer suggestion examples to drawers of BS_icons for keeping simple BS graphics simple.
- It serves also as a diffusion page within category SVG Simplified. -- sarang
사랑 10:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again: I made hundreds of BSicons by hand reducing file size up to 90%. We already have a category for those: Category:Icons for railway descriptions/Bilderkatalog, there we have enough suggestion examples to drawers! a×pdeHello! 20:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
_1966,_MiNr_1229.jpg){kind=link}
No other comment for two months? Then ...
deleted There are at least hundreds of simplified BSicons which are not listed here, thus this category is useless! a×pdeHello! 13:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Somehow this duplicates Category:Landmarks in England and should be merged. For now, I maded Category:Landmarks in England a subcategory of this. -- Docu at 06:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, this should be merged to Category:Landmarks in England, which conforms with the naming conventions in both Category:Landmarks in the United Kingdom and Category:Landmarks by country. --rimshottalk 23:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support Agree this should be done as suggested by Rimshot. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Landmarks in England. --rimshottalk 21:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative works of copyrighted material Ricjac (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look at previous requests:
- Gonioul (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- All the others are versions of these two files and there is also a photograph : keep. Promethee33127 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept - no reason to delete the category, DRs have come down in favour of the gates previously, but if you wish to question these please do so with a deletion request for the images. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
delete. already exists as Category:Ulica Augustiańska in Kraków RaNo (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, category names should be in English. --rimshottalk 21:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Categorization of automobile model on Commons is not organzed by the engine inside the vehicle; categorization by model 80.187.107.178 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
What's the difference between a FSO 125p 1.3 L and FSO 125p in visual terms? --80.187.107.178 17:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support the deletion of yet another senselessly narrow category created by SuperTank17. Mr.choppers (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- It would be nice if 80.187.107.178 had read the convenient FSO 125p guide in Category:FSO 125p. If he/she did that his/her question would answered. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Also There was no "FSO 125p". Every example (excluding the rally versions) has to be a particular version like 1.3 L or 1.5 ME. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted already. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Category is futile plus a one-way category. Should be deleted Pilettes (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I dont see any benefit or use for this subcategory? Is it a kind of information board, do we need now similar cats like Category:Out of scope-related deletion requests of 2010? Yikrazuul (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep, however, since I created the categories with Saibo, I have a conflict of interest. That said, I also wonder if Yikrazuul doesn't have a COI here, given that he can be relied on to {{Vd}} pretty much any sexuality-related image. Anyway, why do I think this category needs to be here, and why did I create it in the first place. We created the parent cat, Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests to keep track of the many such deletion requests and to try and make sure that those of us who find the subject to be useful are all updated about potential deletions. Think of it like a watchlist. Then having deleted and kept subcategories simply made sense, so that we could easily filter out closed DRs, and also find precedents for certain deletions. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- So, it is part of your and Saibo's personal "watchlist" as you stated, your private project within commons. Do you know COM:POINT? Do you other abusive projects in the name space we should know about? --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- How is this abusive or disruptive? It's a hidden category which lets interested people know when there's a sexuality-related deletion discussion, and that it's recently been updated, due to the way in which the categorisation works. Frankly, this CFD is more disruptive. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- So, it is part of your and Saibo's personal "watchlist" as you stated, your private project within commons. Do you know COM:POINT? Do you other abusive projects in the name space we should know about? --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Category is useful (together with Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests/kept) for providing a common basis for the decisioning of future nudity- and sexuality-related deletion requests. --Leyo 10:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep (as co-creator of the cat). It helps all interested users to keep track of and bring more public transparency into this kind of controversial DRs (where not seldom mis-decisions are made) and I am sure Mattbuck and I aren't the only users of these cats. --Saibo (Δ) 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no difference with categories like Category:UAE FOP cases which did result in deletion, it's good to have easy access to related decisions - Jcb (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is no controversy in keeping this category, but there would be one if it is deleted (it would appear like Commons is censored). Beta M (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we can just close this now after a month of inactivity and no one else wanting it deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Nearly (1 image) empty category which creates awful clutter in the cat tree. Why do we need to have "nude people" as subcat in every cat? Nude people are nothing bad, are they? Apparently they are... Saibo (Δ) 17:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- And that single low-quality not-safe-for-work photo, is it really own work? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please help me to find the relation to this discussion. ;) Anyway: if you find out it is a copyvio, or have hints for it, tell us all! --Saibo (Δ) 18:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Let me explain the idea (which I recently applied to many different sucats I created). That solution (that category) allows 2 different things :
- It prevents unexpected viewing of sexually explicit or erotic content. Indeed someone who'd search for images of electric toothbrushes would not see this nude file directly (he'd have to take consciously the necessary step to see this file in the subcat). Indeed, even if Commons is not censored (and I personally fight censorship quite strongly!), we must also think about people who use Commons to find images (especially underage people).
- Nevertheless, since it shows an electric toothbrush, one should be able to find this file in his searches. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks TwoWings - however, it is a clear step towards censorship, isn't it? First bury down so it is harder to find, then mark it as "bad" content, then hide, then delete.
Yes, it prevents from unexpected viewing - do you want to do the same for photos with spiders, Mohammeds, pink clothing? ;) I hope and think you understand. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)- I know that kind of argument and even if I understand one can think that, I somehow think it's a bit paranoid (I'd compare it to the one saying that forbidding smoking in some public places is a regression as far as freedoms are concerned). I honestly think we have to deal with the diversity of people and thinking. I suppose (and hope) you would think it's not acceptable to have sex in a street. Some pedestrians would be pleased to watch such an act, others would be shocked, others (mainly among the yougsters) could even be traumatized. We need consensual solutions to keep both freedoms and protections. That's how societies work and I guess that's also how Commons should work. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- BTW : I came with this idea of subcats because I was sick of the many reverts each time I tried to add cats on nude/sex files. Since I created those cats, I have not seen any revert, so I suppose that solution is the best solution to content everyone. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Like you are sick of seeing reverts I am sick of seeing those categories instead of regarding naked humans as the most natural thing of the world (at least more than it is currently here at COM). As you can see in the file history it also worked without this category. ;-) More or less.
- Due to all those "Nude or partially nude people" cats we have people saying: "Look, those fetish Commonists - they even have a category for nude people on jumping balls!!!!11" (fictive (?) example).
- I would not create such categories myself and I do not like they are here. As of now there are also no other supporters (okay, I know, they would come). Btw: in Commons:Categories there isn't such an exception for this kind of phobia categories, is it? However, thanks for this talk. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- 1. I agree for the general statement about nudity. But a) explicit/vulgar/sexualized nudity (like this pic with the toohbrush) is another matter and can clearly have consequences for underage people ; b) Commons also needs to take in consideration the reality of our societies (its goal is not to change the world, or it won't follow the rule of being neutral).
- 2. I have to admit I had not thought that way before and you might be right. But is it such a common way of judging us ? I don't think so. I think it's a marginal way of seeing Commons, whereas the wish to remove cats or to bring censorship on Commons is far less marginal. We can't struggle everything... (BTW, yes we do have such a picture ;-) and it's even more necessary to create a subcat that it concerns a toy generally used by children!)
- 3. There's neither mention of "phobia cats" (as you say) nor forbidding. And it's not only about phobia, as you say. It's just a way to respect people who have problems about those kinds of sensitive subjects (nudity, sex, violence, death) - this can be phobias, but not only (traumas, for instance, is a reason that can be accepted and respected - I personally would like people to protect be from beheaded photos that traumatize me). Anyway, if we want nude pics to be accepted (and in a way our way of thinking respected), we also have to accept other considerations (respect doesn't work one-way) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- ← 1. I do not have the aim to build a repository for underage people whose parents do not like these children to see naked people (respectively whose parents raise/teach this child in a way that leads to a shocked/frightened child if it sees naked people). That simple. ;-)
- 2. I am pretty sure that I had seen this kind of thinking about Commons' cats somewhere (sadly I do not remember where, currently).
I knew that we have this picture - just didn't know if it has a cat "nude people on jumping balls". As I see now it hasn't - and: it misses currently a category for the ball. - 3. It is not easy but I do not think those phobia cats are the right way. Do you create a own cat "Dead people in Berlin" just because you need to hide a photo of a dead person/body? And "Mohammed pictures in Berlin"? Just to demonstrate... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, again, we have to respect the diversity of people and thinking. It's the best way to struggle against censorship on Commons.
- Another thing : it's easy, in a way, to judge people who want to protect youngsters from nude pics. I agree that there's some exagerations and that many parents create phobias with such "morals". But any psychologist would tell you that it's not a question of moral if you show sex/porn pictures to young children. I have a baby girl and even if I deeply consider I won't hide nudity from her, I'll protect her from some explicit/sexualized pictures (e.g. pics like the one with the toothbrush or the one with the woman on the jumping ball). It's also easy to say "let's show nudity" without thinking of the reality of life. As a teacher, I would not work with Commons website with my classes because I know what kind of behaviours or conflicts I would see among my students if they found nude pictures (and even worse if it's more about sex, masturbation, etc). I just know it because it's already difficult sometimes with extracts of movies or paintings ! I regret that reality (I'm actually very angry against those stupid behaviours each time I'm confronted to them) but I have to deal with it. Therefore having tenets is one thing, dealing with reality is another thing ! That's why we sometimes need consensual solutions, even if they're not optimal. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Agree, I do or would (will no publish if it is fictive or not) also not show my children (if they were young) sexuality/real porn - for whatever reason ... something psychological.
- I do still not really think that those phobia cats are the right way (Commons is not censored and those cats really are on the slope to it) - but accept them.
- So, those cats are there to hide content - which content to hide? Those content of which the majority (of? users? viewers/readers?) thinks that it is justified to tolerate the drawbacks of such hypercategorization for the sake of the interests of a minority/group of people, right? Hard to find the right threshold of which cat to create to hide and which not (compare with my point 3 above).
- A bit practice: File:Jumping ball 01.jpg is now in Category:People with balls - do you want to create a subcat Category:Nude or partially nude people with balls? Btw: Category:Anal balls is directly in Category:Balls - shouldn't it be in a subcat Category:Possibly sexual uses of balls?
- Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Iam against too much or too deep categories for a simply practical reason. It is simply only needed to create more specific and deeper cats if the superordinated cat contains already some similar pictures who can be grouped together in a new sub-cat. It is irrelevant if there are naked people or not. Everbody is responsible for himself regarding what he or his children on PC views. If someone wants he can simply use his own private filtering software.On the other side i can understand your sorrow but i see it so: when there is a new cat with only one image, it feels lonely... :-) --AtelierMonpli (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I prefer more simple categories for a single pic than a too deep category that just matches very few pictures. --Funfood Funtalk 08:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Question for those who want the deletion of this cat (and maybe equivalent cats I guess). What do you propose to struggle against people who constantly remove non-nude cats on nude files ?! I can understand that you are against my solution, but it's not constructive if you have no better solution ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't removed after re-addition with explanation anymore. ;) My solution would be to do it as I did - explain the people that the picture belongs in the el. toothbrushes cat. And if people have a problem with nude people with toothbrushes in small(! - not even large) thumbnails (category gallery) it is their problem - not mine. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't speak about this specific picture. It's a general remark. There are pictures for which I undid removals several times and I think I explained everytime. I'm sick of that. And I repeat that I have not seen any problem since I started to create such subcats. Now the problem comes from people like you (and like me, actually!) who'd prefer to keep them in the mother cats and question the pertinence of these cats. I've spent hours creating subcats to resolve those problems and I'm really angry to see that it's now asked for deletion from people who are supposed to be on my side ! It's the sort of dilemma that makes me wish to abandon my contributions on Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know that you are on the same side - but why should this phobia cat system be the solution to this social(?) problem? I am happy to see earlier discussions of it - could you give me links? I also think that we can keep this discussion open for a while - and/or invite other people to comment. --Saibo (Δ) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I won't waste my time looking for example but here are some I remember (see the history) : this file has been refused as an example of depth of field several times even when I explained in the summary of the edition (then I created a subcat and there was no problem, I even had a thanking award for that !) ; another example of regular removing of cat ; you'll also find several examples among the files of this cat because it's a very sensible topic (and objectively we may understand that a file of a nude woman with a hijab cannot be accepted directly in the cat concerning hijabs, at least by those who believe in that religion). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know that you are on the same side - but why should this phobia cat system be the solution to this social(?) problem? I am happy to see earlier discussions of it - could you give me links? I also think that we can keep this discussion open for a while - and/or invite other people to comment. --Saibo (Δ) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't speak about this specific picture. It's a general remark. There are pictures for which I undid removals several times and I think I explained everytime. I'm sick of that. And I repeat that I have not seen any problem since I started to create such subcats. Now the problem comes from people like you (and like me, actually!) who'd prefer to keep them in the mother cats and question the pertinence of these cats. I've spent hours creating subcats to resolve those problems and I'm really angry to see that it's now asked for deletion from people who are supposed to be on my side ! It's the sort of dilemma that makes me wish to abandon my contributions on Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't removed after re-addition with explanation anymore. ;) My solution would be to do it as I did - explain the people that the picture belongs in the el. toothbrushes cat. And if people have a problem with nude people with toothbrushes in small(! - not even large) thumbnails (category gallery) it is their problem - not mine. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
WTF?. Commons categories are meant to be able to find things, not to hide things. Delete Multichill (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- That DOESN'T hide anything ! You can find the subcat very easily if you look for electric toothbrushes. But it's indirect because it prevents from unwanted vision of explicit nudity. Please read my comments above about my child or my class. We're a pedagogical project so we have to care about pedagogy ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- It DOES hide - or do you see any pictures with nude persons in the main cat? No? → Hidden. Remember my comments from above: first hidden with one click, then hidden with a password, then completely deleted. You did ask for solutions: the solution is: if someone doesn't want to see nude people he should bury himself under his blanket in bed and close the eyes - problem solved, isn't it? --Saibo (Δ) 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Saibo. You know that I respect and like you, that I consider you as clever and I've always thought you hated hypocrisy as much as I do. But - and maybe it's not voluntary - you've been somehow hypocrit in your previous message. Let me explain :
- 1) Let's close that sterile debate about the word "hidden". With that kind of category, are the files hidden ? Yes if we think "hidden" means "not directly visible". No if we think "hidden" means "we try to keep it secret". In fact, those cats work as a cupboard : when you enter the kitchen, the door of the cupboard is closed (but unlocked). The cups are indeed hidden but it doesn't prevent you from opening the door if you need cups. Those categories even have an advantage that your cupboard generally doesn't have : the door is labelled and you know what you may find before opening it !
- 2) Your "solution" : come on ! You're clever enough to know and admit it's NOT a solution ! It clearly means "we don't work for people who have problems with nudity so we ask them not to use Commons"! Is that acceptable ? No. Because the project is suppoed to be useful for anyone, whatever their culture and opinions are.
- Let's face it (reality) : those who have problems with nude/sexual pics will never make a step towards us. And we won't accept to make those files invisible or to build a censored Commons. There's a rule of "neutrality" on Commons and that means that we have to find consensual solutions to respect the most we can the different ways of thinking. If we don't accept my solution (which was IMO the only step I could accept), I only see a dead end ! And therefore a continuous battle of reverts ! Is that what you really want ? Well if that's a yes, you won't count on me anymore to struggle against censorship because I'm sick of this revert battle (I repeat that I've seen no revert for the subcats I created and added). It's like Israel and Palestine : if no-one wants to make a step and accept the differences, the war will never end... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again TwoWings, thanks for your reply!
- Ad 1): I am not really sure that the cupboard comparison is a appropriate one. I will continue anyway: Why don't we put all files in small cupboards (which contain each one file)? Right - because it is annoying if you need to open ten cupboards (each inside another cupboard) to get to your cup. Rather we usually use big cupboards so you only need to open a low number of cupboards and then can look at all the cups to find one which you like.
- Ad 2): You cannot be useful for everybody. Easy example: someone hates computers and electronic devices (frightened of electricity). Will you help him, print commons to a book with glossy paper and 11 million pages and deliver it to his door? No, you will not, I guess. Maybe he can put on rubber gloves and a aluminum foil hat to get protection - but this is his job, isn't it?
If you think the phobia cats are the solution then you need to create also some for spiders, snakes, women with naked faces and ... pink Ferraris with white polka dots. - Ad 3): I will not work in a censored Commons but, luckily, as of now, per definition, it isn't. More comparisons: You do not tolerate a bit vandalism to make vandals happy, do you?
- 4): Have there been previous discussions about these cats? --Saibo (Δ) 15:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- (I forgot to come back here !...)
- 1) Well, it's not about having a cupboard for isolated glasses (the fact that we have only one pic in that cat is just both a coincidence and a consequence of category tree because of need of accessibility - see below for the demonstration) people do have different cupboards (at least different doors of their cupboards) for cups, glasses, plates, etc. And some also have different places for daily glasses and special-occasions glasses (e.g. champagne glasses). Some also do prefer to use less accessible doors for dangerous or fragile things in order not to be used/discovered/broken by underage kids. We could multiply the comparisons and yes I maintain it's a good comparison !
- 2)Your comparison is (delibarately, I suppose) kind of burlesque. You KNOW that your example is just about taste and hate, which is not the case of nudity, sexuality, violence, death and vulgarity, that are (I guess) the only topics for which it's also a question of moral and/or psychology (again, a kid seeing a porn pic is not something we should wish!). So yes, I agree we cannot content everyone's fears, but when something is more than a fear and has strong implications in our societies, we should consider that reality.
- 3) We do not tolerat vandalism but when we find a solution or a tool to decrease the number of vandalism acts we do accept it, we don't reject it by saying "let's continue the old way, you know, the unefficient and time-consuming way ?"
- 4) No we haven't (to my knowledge), I agree. I just continued and improved some pre-existing "system" (I haven't created the first cats with such logic). But I did post several messages at the village pump and various talk pages and no-one has ever complained. Actually, I'll post a link to this page on the talk page of Commons:Nudity so that we'll have more opinions. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- It DOES hide - or do you see any pictures with nude persons in the main cat? No? → Hidden. Remember my comments from above: first hidden with one click, then hidden with a password, then completely deleted. You did ask for solutions: the solution is: if someone doesn't want to see nude people he should bury himself under his blanket in bed and close the eyes - problem solved, isn't it? --Saibo (Δ) 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- That DOESN'T hide anything ! You can find the subcat very easily if you look for electric toothbrushes. But it's indirect because it prevents from unwanted vision of explicit nudity. Please read my comments above about my child or my class. We're a pedagogical project so we have to care about pedagogy ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- hello TwoWings,
I am not against your work. I am only a new "categorizer", and see, that there are a lot of nude or partially nude people with objects. To think about filters and censorship is not my job as categorizer. But it can be to find the best categories for a picture or names for a category.
We have Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_women_with_objects. There i cannot find the pic with the toothbrush. [[1]]
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Masturbating_with_a_toothbrush.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
As a good categorizer i do a good job when a picture gets all categories it belongs to. To put the image to "toothbruhes" seems to be logical, also to Category:Shaved genitalia (female) and Category:Women's sanitary objects (joke) and Category:People holding objects ....
Every fuckin' logo seems to get more categories... but to think about censorship is not our first job as categorizer. I think, this starts with [[2]] and the second edit: (Remove Category:Toothbrushes because an image of masturbation would not be anticiapated when viewing the category). It is very difficult, and now i go to read Commons:Nudity, maybe i should do this first *sry*.
To create a new category for this picture is one way to save it, not to hide it; i can understand you very well. But.... if you now get a pic with a partially-nude-women with-toothbrush (not electrically) will you make a new category for it? It cannot stay in "toothbrush"...and not in "electrically" and i think, this is the real problem. best wishes --AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you care abut categorizing, you question the category tree, not one isolated category, and you look for solutions.
- So here is a solution with 2 new cats I created (we may delete them eventually if decided...), which creates the following category tree, where - as you can see - you can now find easily this category with 4 different paths !
- THIS is a solution. I repeat that nobody have brought any other alternative solution here. I showed you above that you'll always have people removing non-nude cats on nude files, even if we explain them our way of thinking (which some will never accept, so that's useless - try to add the hijab cat on the file I mentioned above, you'll see what will happen, you'll never win !). I repeat : we have to deal with reality by having consensual and pragmatic solutions. I propose one with such categories. I still wait for alternatives... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- hm...an other solution for deal: We made under every category when needed the cat.: "caution: may contain peanuts or nudity" :-) --AtelierMonpli (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- That won't do ! When you reach the page of a category, you generally watch the files without reading any introduction or templates. And even if you do, you may see the first pics. I also repeat my example of classes in schools. If I asked my pupils to look for images of an object (for whatever work, let's just make the hypothesis), I would prefer if they don't find directly' the nude files (if they're enough concentrated on their work, they would not follow their research in nude subcats as long as they found non nude files they needed). It's a question of logic applied to our reality (real life, I mean), not a Commons/Internet/virtual-centered logic with no sense of reality ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, if this cat is questioned, I suppose we may question (and want the deletion of) all subcats of Category:Nude or partially nude people with objects and Category:Nude or partially nude people by setting ? Is that what you really want ? Maybe Category:Nude or partially nude people by posture or those by hair color, too ? After all, why do we have category trees by posture or hair color ? What's the need ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, we are again at the problem of a useful categoration tree. At the moment, it is patchwork. I could live with deep cats like the one that is discussed here, but one has to ask which topic earns owns subcats, because there may be many more sensibilities than just with nudity. Pragmatic solutions are very welcome. --Funfood Funtalk 13:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the truth is that we're reaching the limits of what our current static categorisation can effectively do; maybe we should think about how we can combine a tagging approach to create dynamic categorisation (eg instead of many "Category:Nude and X", "Category:Nude and Y" you'd just have tag:nude and tag:X, tag:Y etc, with category intersections dynamically generated by the software on demand). There are no easy answers, but in the long term (years...) there has to be a better way to manage these things - just look at flickr, for instance. In the mean time, though, we'll just have to do our best with the system we have. Rd232 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, we are again at the problem of a useful categoration tree. At the moment, it is patchwork. I could live with deep cats like the one that is discussed here, but one has to ask which topic earns owns subcats, because there may be many more sensibilities than just with nudity. Pragmatic solutions are very welcome. --Funfood Funtalk 13:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- hm...an other solution for deal: We made under every category when needed the cat.: "caution: may contain peanuts or nudity" :-) --AtelierMonpli (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete because this cat does not reflect the watch. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't use simple cats, at least you need to be precise: you can clearly see that the person wears a watch. The cat does not account for that important information and is therefore dispensable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- There's no logic in your argument ! Would you remove the cat "people with bottles" from File:Bastille Tumble 2010 Toulouse Wine.JPG with the argument that this guy has also a hat and that "people with bottles" doesn't reflect that he's got a hat ?!!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't use simple cats, at least you need to be precise: you can clearly see that the person wears a watch. The cat does not account for that important information and is therefore dispensable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment whether you agree with this type of category or not, I hope we can agree that a DR of a single category of the type is not the place to establish whether such categories should exist. Close this DR as "keep, for now", and open a wider discussion, presumably at COM:VP. The outcome of that discussion will cover this category. Rd232 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- VP is not the right place - it is too fast. We can move (I do not want to see that we discussed here all the kBs for nothing) this discussion to a CfD for "Nude or partially nude people with foobar" if you like. This discussion spawned since this category was created new. --Saibo (Δ) 21:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, that (or COM:VPR, which is slower-moving) would work, but in any case it should be advertised appropriately, maybe with a watchlist-notice. It's a solution to a site-wide issue, and the question of whether to apply it widely (or any alternatives to the same question) merits wide discussion to ensure that the decision reflects the community's view, and not just a very small sample. Rd232 (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment to those who think we just have to keep reverting : see that revert and the history of the file. Do you really think reverting is the best solution to keep files accessible ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the problem? It is in "people in bed" now. The user was right - it was missing. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per the WMF resolution which includes categorization according to the w:Principle of least astonishment. Essentially as TwoWings has argued throughout this discussion. --99of9 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per board resolution and principle of least astonishment. People looking for an image of a toothbrush aren't generally interested in one used for masturbation. --JN466 17:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- You both are completely missing that the WMF's stupid ideas have no relevance for us (the community). --Saibo (Δ) 20:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The board resolution is relevant for the community if the community thinks it relevant - if it expresses something the community agrees with. You clearly think the resolution is stupid; fine. Others don't. Rd232 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am completely with you. It just seems that the WMF ideas are cited here as god given and the truth of truth. That is what I want to point to. --Saibo (Δ) 22:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think people are citing the resolution as binding... at least I haven't had that impression. Rd232 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have the impression that there is not much own reasoning behind by those plain "per WMF blabla" comments. God said we have to, so we do. --Saibo (Δ) 00:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Saibo, your "impression" is completely wrong, of course I have "own reasoning" behind my support for the WMF resolution. In fact, I find your statement somewhat offensive given that I was heavily involved (as you were) in developing the COM:SEX proposal that first proposed applying Surprise to categorization. --99of9 (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I had based my impression on the pure comment here - no offense intended, sorry if it seemed like. Of course you may comment more or less as you like. Just: If someone uninvolved would read e.g. your comment I think he could mean that the WMF thingy is binding for us. --Saibo (Δ) 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Saibo, your "impression" is completely wrong, of course I have "own reasoning" behind my support for the WMF resolution. In fact, I find your statement somewhat offensive given that I was heavily involved (as you were) in developing the COM:SEX proposal that first proposed applying Surprise to categorization. --99of9 (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have the impression that there is not much own reasoning behind by those plain "per WMF blabla" comments. God said we have to, so we do. --Saibo (Δ) 00:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think people are citing the resolution as binding... at least I haven't had that impression. Rd232 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am completely with you. It just seems that the WMF ideas are cited here as god given and the truth of truth. That is what I want to point to. --Saibo (Δ) 22:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The composition of the board is not entirely independent of the community, is it. In addition, they are members of the community too, and highly trusted members at that; otherwise they wouldn't be on the board. Lastly, if I had a material disagreement with the board resolution, I would have no compunction saying so. But the fact is that I have seen far too many, far too daft violations of the principle of least astonishment in Commons. Nothing against sexual images; but having images of toys and toothbrushes in the same category as images of people using these objects for masturbation is just stupid. --JN466 06:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is stupid with "having images of toys and toothbrushes in the same category as images of people using these objects for masturbation"? Still the same objects which the cat is about, hm? Is having File:Cat-and-computer.JPG in Category:Computer mouse stupid, too? --Saibo (Δ) 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just face it, Saibo : a toothbrush is not design for masturbation, isn't it ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, well, maybe the manufacturers think of this side-use? ;-) And: A computer mouse isn't designed as a toy for kittens, is it? --Saibo (Δ) 17:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is having File:Cat-and-computer.JPG in Category:Computer mouse stupid, too? - yes. Yes it is. A category about an object should have images primarily of that object (as all the other images in that category are). Images of use (and abuse) of the object should be in a subcategory. We have Category:People using computers and Category:Cats with computers but not Category:People using a computer mouse, never mind Category:Animals using a computer mouse, but that's what we should have. Rd232 (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I do not agree (and please note that the category wasn't added by me). If we only have a single image it needs to be in Category:Computer mouse. Otherwise you cannot find it if you do a catscan for "Young animals" AND "computer mouse". Yes, somewhere there needs to be a limit - this image includes a power strip but only partly and totally out of the main focus of the image - so I would say that this image doesn't belong in Category:Power strips. --Saibo (Δ) 21:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Catscan provides for traversing subcategories, so I don't think that's an issue. (It rarely works for me anyway - usually crashes in some way.) Rd232 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- es, subcats are no problem. But I thought you do not want to include this image in Category:Computer mouse (or a subcat) but rather in Category:Cats with computers. Did I misunderstand? --Saibo (Δ) 01:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - look again at the red links in my comment above. Could have been clearer, perhaps, but I meant that Category:Computer mouse should have an appropriate subcategory - just like Category:Cats with computers is an appropriate subcategory for Category:Computers. You may object that there'd only be one image in that right now - but that's always a chicken-and-egg thing, since creating categories encourages people to use them to categorise, and to upload new content. Rd232 (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification. So you wanted to do the proposed phobia cat with just one image (underpopulated). Okay. Well, chicken and egg - nice metaphor - but it doesn't apply here. The eggs are the images in "Computer mouse" they can be there - they do not need a chicken (Nude whatever with computer mice). That is how our category system works. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - look again at the red links in my comment above. Could have been clearer, perhaps, but I meant that Category:Computer mouse should have an appropriate subcategory - just like Category:Cats with computers is an appropriate subcategory for Category:Computers. You may object that there'd only be one image in that right now - but that's always a chicken-and-egg thing, since creating categories encourages people to use them to categorise, and to upload new content. Rd232 (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- es, subcats are no problem. But I thought you do not want to include this image in Category:Computer mouse (or a subcat) but rather in Category:Cats with computers. Did I misunderstand? --Saibo (Δ) 01:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Catscan provides for traversing subcategories, so I don't think that's an issue. (It rarely works for me anyway - usually crashes in some way.) Rd232 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I do not agree (and please note that the category wasn't added by me). If we only have a single image it needs to be in Category:Computer mouse. Otherwise you cannot find it if you do a catscan for "Young animals" AND "computer mouse". Yes, somewhere there needs to be a limit - this image includes a power strip but only partly and totally out of the main focus of the image - so I would say that this image doesn't belong in Category:Power strips. --Saibo (Δ) 21:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just face it, Saibo : a toothbrush is not design for masturbation, isn't it ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is stupid with "having images of toys and toothbrushes in the same category as images of people using these objects for masturbation"? Still the same objects which the cat is about, hm? Is having File:Cat-and-computer.JPG in Category:Computer mouse stupid, too? --Saibo (Δ) 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- The board resolution is relevant for the community if the community thinks it relevant - if it expresses something the community agrees with. You clearly think the resolution is stupid; fine. Others don't. Rd232 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- You both are completely missing that the WMF's stupid ideas have no relevance for us (the community). --Saibo (Δ) 20:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Masturbation with electric toothbrushes. That is what's happening in the one image in this category, and besides being a more concise name, it is also a much more significant topic in its own right than this dubious intersection category (for those who are not aware, the electric toothbrush is a very common household female masturbation device). Dcoetzee (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree this is a better name. --99of9 (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. Rd232 (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- We did have that category and people complained about that too. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Any arguments to delete are not based on logic or policy, and to rename it to "masturbation" is to claim an action that cannot be determined unless there is animation or the rest. Dcoetzee's claim also brings in original research which has no basis in this discussion and is off topic, as is many of the rationales used to delete this category. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- In case it wasn't obvious from just looking at it, which it really ought to be, the filename is File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg, and the description reads: "A woman is masturbating with an electric toothbrush". I'm not making this stuff up. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your condescension and incivility is completely inappropriate and you really should know better, especially when a file name is not proof nor a statement of fact, nor can it be proven that such a file name is adequate since "masturbation" is an action and not a position. I doubt you will care, as your inappropriate hostility throughout this page is disappointing and shows a trend that isn't healthy for this community. You are showing a complete disregard for basics which I have not seen from you in the past and I hope you address that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- We have many images which depict actions (see Category:Running, Category:Horse riding, Category:Juggling, etc.). Although the complete action is not visible in the image, it is usually implied in a very clear way. The same is true with this image. Even if that's not what she's actually doing (say if she's just a photography model setting up a shot), this image could still be used to depict that type of masturbation because that's what she appears to be doing. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your own example, "running" shows that your argument is preposterous because the act of running has a pose that is unique. Horse riding, for example, has a person on the back of a horse, and as long as there is one there it always is. "Masturbation", however, is not that certain and is not an act merely from "posing". You admit to original research in your last sentence, and the way your rhetoric and lack of arguments in the past few days suggest, I don't think you have a realistic case. You are doing yourself no favor and undermining and future credibility you may have by continuing with such poor examples and arguments. In the other thread, you even pretended that libraries can only put books in one category when anyone with the most basic understanding of them would know that is wrong. I think you might need to take some time off, sleep, not be as busy irl, or whatever it is causing you to make such strange arguments. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Someone who reckons that an image of someone applying an electric toothbrush to their clitoris cannot be classed as a representation of masturbation with said item is not someone who should complain about people making "strange arguments". Rd232 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- The act of masturbation turns the image into hard core pornography. When there are models involved, that is a major difference and has potential BLP ramifications. Masturbation is also strictly defined and is not merely posing with something. Your post above and your warning on my page are off base and should really stop. There is no rational or logical way to attribute a set of action and intent to this model and the ethical ramifications of doing such are why we have bans on such actions as disruptive - see prohibitions on BLP problems, personal rights, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- If the model were identifiable, it would be problematic to publicly claim they performed a sex act that they did not perform (if they in fact did not perform it but only posed for the shot). Such images should be described as "simulations" or "illustrations" of the act. In this case, though, I don't think there are any such ethical issues to consider - if you were to consider such issues, I would start with images described as depicting sex acts by readily identifiable persons, such as File:Fellation Tracy and Rick-1.jpg, File:ErosPyramide20090221_442.jpg. I would also appreciate you not attacking my state of mind - I am fully aware and have only made arguments which I believe to have merit, as I believe everyone here has done (notwithstanding my inexperience with the library system). Dcoetzee (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- The act of masturbation turns the image into hard core pornography. When there are models involved, that is a major difference and has potential BLP ramifications. Masturbation is also strictly defined and is not merely posing with something. Your post above and your warning on my page are off base and should really stop. There is no rational or logical way to attribute a set of action and intent to this model and the ethical ramifications of doing such are why we have bans on such actions as disruptive - see prohibitions on BLP problems, personal rights, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Someone who reckons that an image of someone applying an electric toothbrush to their clitoris cannot be classed as a representation of masturbation with said item is not someone who should complain about people making "strange arguments". Rd232 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your own example, "running" shows that your argument is preposterous because the act of running has a pose that is unique. Horse riding, for example, has a person on the back of a horse, and as long as there is one there it always is. "Masturbation", however, is not that certain and is not an act merely from "posing". You admit to original research in your last sentence, and the way your rhetoric and lack of arguments in the past few days suggest, I don't think you have a realistic case. You are doing yourself no favor and undermining and future credibility you may have by continuing with such poor examples and arguments. In the other thread, you even pretended that libraries can only put books in one category when anyone with the most basic understanding of them would know that is wrong. I think you might need to take some time off, sleep, not be as busy irl, or whatever it is causing you to make such strange arguments. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- We have many images which depict actions (see Category:Running, Category:Horse riding, Category:Juggling, etc.). Although the complete action is not visible in the image, it is usually implied in a very clear way. The same is true with this image. Even if that's not what she's actually doing (say if she's just a photography model setting up a shot), this image could still be used to depict that type of masturbation because that's what she appears to be doing. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your condescension and incivility is completely inappropriate and you really should know better, especially when a file name is not proof nor a statement of fact, nor can it be proven that such a file name is adequate since "masturbation" is an action and not a position. I doubt you will care, as your inappropriate hostility throughout this page is disappointing and shows a trend that isn't healthy for this community. You are showing a complete disregard for basics which I have not seen from you in the past and I hope you address that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- In case it wasn't obvious from just looking at it, which it really ought to be, the filename is File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg, and the description reads: "A woman is masturbating with an electric toothbrush". I'm not making this stuff up. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Commons does not have a "BLP" policy. I can't put it any more bluntly or clearly than that. It does have Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Rd232 (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- We all have a BLP policy, and if you think that Commons doesn't respect BLP then you do not understand our policies or standards here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- "There is no rational or logical way to attribute a set of action and intent to this model..." - it is an "own work" image called File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg, which the uploader gave the caption "masturbing with electric toothbrush" (sic)[3]. On what basis do you claim that the uploader did not intend for the image to represent "masturbating with a toothbrush"? It doesn't matter, for the purposes of what is being shown, whether the act is being documented or simulated if you can't tell the difference. Are you saying that you can? Similarly, the policies you so aggressively cite are irrelevant: COM:BLP and Commons:Personality rights both refer to the guideline Commons:Photographs of identifiable people - are you saying this person is identifiable? How? Rd232 (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader is someone who cannot be trusted - you can see many "own work" with many different subjects and models, including random bits of Japanese and material that makes it clear that there is a lot of possible problems. Furthermore, an uploader's statements isn't proof enough of anything on Commons or on Wikimedia as a whole. And it does matter for every purpose to identify what a woman is doing. And BLP doesn't stop because a person is "unidentifiable" or we could easily take random pictures of the back of people's head and upload them as "racists" or other similar things. This is the basics of BLP and everyone should respect it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- "The uploader is someone who cannot be trusted..." - you may be right; investigating this lead me to post Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Xmm. You're wrong about BLP though, as I explained on my talk page. Rd232 (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader is someone who cannot be trusted - you can see many "own work" with many different subjects and models, including random bits of Japanese and material that makes it clear that there is a lot of possible problems. Furthermore, an uploader's statements isn't proof enough of anything on Commons or on Wikimedia as a whole. And it does matter for every purpose to identify what a woman is doing. And BLP doesn't stop because a person is "unidentifiable" or we could easily take random pictures of the back of people's head and upload them as "racists" or other similar things. This is the basics of BLP and everyone should respect it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- "There is no rational or logical way to attribute a set of action and intent to this model..." - it is an "own work" image called File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg, which the uploader gave the caption "masturbing with electric toothbrush" (sic)[3]. On what basis do you claim that the uploader did not intend for the image to represent "masturbating with a toothbrush"? It doesn't matter, for the purposes of what is being shown, whether the act is being documented or simulated if you can't tell the difference. Are you saying that you can? Similarly, the policies you so aggressively cite are irrelevant: COM:BLP and Commons:Personality rights both refer to the guideline Commons:Photographs of identifiable people - are you saying this person is identifiable? How? Rd232 (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Masturbating_with_a_toothbrush.jpg&oldid=54041743){kind=link}
| Participants are reminded to focus on the content of the DR issue, to contribute to a pleasant and productive discussion, and to pursue any dispute resolution that may be necessary outside this DR. |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
|
Kept - If we are to keep to the "principle of least astonishment", this category is a necessity because it is a naked person with an electric toothbrush, and where else would we put the image? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
to delete nonsense GFreihalter (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted This category was empty. --GeorgHH • talk 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
to delete nonsense GFreihalter (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Leaning to delete - indeed, it makes no sense to deploy "The Grand Scheme of Things" at a small town level. No more Glaciers of Senegal please. NVO (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept "Nonsense" is not a valid reason for deletion for a correct categorized category with three sub-cats and around 32 media files. --GeorgHH • talk 21:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Motor vehicles are categorized by model and not by the engine inside of it 80.187.106.144 09:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nor by equipment level or usually even model years. SuperTank17 continues his obfuscating methods. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary High Contrast if you read my brief description of FSO Polonez models in FSO Polonez you would know that the S means an example of FSO Polonez with a third pair of side windows in the C-pillars and the L means "enriched version" (side strips etc.).
- Also what's so wrong with calling cars by their full names?
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with calling cars by their full name. Creating separate categories for them is, however, incorrect. Categorization is meant to help users find pictures, not to hide them at the bottom of endless and confusing category trees. You must have noticed by now that your talkpage is full to the brim with conversations like this one - why can't you just find something more useful to do with your time? Mr.choppers (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Since I've already know that it will be impossible for me to persuade you to my point of view I'll get rid of those categories. Because you know what? I have better things to do than arguing my point with someone who will never agree with it.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted on 20. Okt. 2011 by Foroa "(Category:FSO Polonez MR'89 1.5 SLE moved to Category:FSO Polonez MR'89)" --GeorgHH • talk 21:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This user cat should be renamed to category:Files by user:Luemmel (or similar) to reflect he user cat status. ("Luemmel" is also a informal German word). Saibo (Δ) 12:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support; current name is not acceptable. --Túrelio (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved/Renamed to Category:Files by User:Luemmel --GeorgHH • talk 20:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
AMF 82.60.153.104 00:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- What's that supposed to mean? --rimshottalk 21:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Closed, no reason given. --rimshottalk 21:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Category should be moved to Category:Holzheim (Donau-Ries) because ther are three other municpalies. There is no reason to give one of them the category without bracket. SteMicha (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Foroa (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Moros (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Holzheim (Donau-Ries) and disambiguated. --rimshottalk 21:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong name ~ should be "water tower"... Paulbe (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rename. English - not Dutch. )) Kobac (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Water tower in Den Helder--GeorgHH • talk 21:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not quite happy. According to established procedures:
- The old name should be a redirect.
- The correct name would be "Water towers in Den Helder" (use plural form in category names).
--Paulbe (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that a redirect should have been left/ I would agree that the category title should have been plural -- except all the images seem to be of a single tower. Geo Swan (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oc, you are right! And i was wrong insofar that a redirect is not the normal way for categories. However, I am not sure that there is only o one water tower in Den Helder. And, if that was the only point, i surely would try to find out if there is another one (or not). However, as i understand the rules correctly, that is not decisive ... In theory another one could be built ... and the category name should thus use the plural? An alternative would be to use the name of this tower in DH as category name ... Or am i being to strict now ? --Paulbe (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
This event is out of the Commons project scope 80.187.107.3 09:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Event the same as millions of others in the Commons. Provides many pictures of encyclopedias actresses, actors and other representatives of film art. --Starscream (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Starscream. Electron ツ ➧☎ 00:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. --MGA73 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
should be deleted, superfluouos GFreihalter (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand what you mean. Do you think Category:Lutetia, Category:Lugdunum, Category:Vasio, etc... should all be deleted, as they are all latin names of modern cities ? I thought using the latin name for archeology-related topics was a good way to separate them from the modern city related topics. 18:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as empty by Fastily two years ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Category should be at Category:Coins of Louis XIV of France as others. Simone 20:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed doubling the cat... --Sailko (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Coins of Louis XIV of France as per nom. --rimshottalk 15:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding location to category name, as in interlinked articles,- right now it's too generic, like "Muslim Mosque". You decide if it's Kiev or Kyiv (I've had enough of this EEML bickering already).
Another controversial issue is classifying karaite kenasas under synagogues. Curiously, modern English wikipedia does precisely this, although it wasn't the case when most kenasas were built. Reassimilation of Karaites into Jews is a very recent movement. NVO (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC) NVO (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Info: In 2010 Category:Karaite synagogues was created, at Category:Karaim Kenasa the cfd template was removed in 2013 by User:Ykvach, who also made a cat redir to Category:Karaite synagogues. Localizing subcats do exist, so this cfd can be closed. --Achim (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Closed due to category redirect done in 2013. --Achim (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Ich schlage vor, diese Kategorie nach Category:Berkheim zu verschieben, da der Klammerzusatz offensichtlich unnötig ist. Eine Verschiebung würde das Lemma der Kategorie auch an das Lemma in der de:wp angleichen. SteMicha (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose No reason to give one city priority over another. --Foroa (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the reason is, that de:Berkheim (Esslingen am Neckar) is only a borough of de:Esslingen am Neckar, while de:Berkheim is a autonomous city. And moving this category would correspond to the lemma in de:wp. SteMicha (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- In contrast with (some) wikipedias, we have no priorities on Commons: a place is place, except for some old historical cities. One cannot expect that a random user has to know if the one is a city, the other a town and another a municipality. We don't want to waste our time with discussions on "primary subjects" that are most of the time on culture, language and/or region , wealth, size, population, .... dependent --Foroa (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- So you're about to move Category:London to Category:London, United Kingdom because there are many more tremendously important Londons around the world? What is actually done (and what makes sense, since about every place-name is used more than once on Planet Earth) is prioritizing. D'accord with SteMicha. --Århus (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- For historical, practical and nationalistic reasons, we don't disambiguate any more large historical capital cities, countries (Georgia) and some national symbols (liberty statue, George Washington). Those are the only ones, but there is no reason to make it worse. --Foroa (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- The category system is not intended for providing some kind of ranking of entities sharing the same name. --Achim (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- For historical, practical and nationalistic reasons, we don't disambiguate any more large historical capital cities, countries (Georgia) and some national symbols (liberty statue, George Washington). Those are the only ones, but there is no reason to make it worse. --Foroa (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the reason is, that de:Berkheim (Esslingen am Neckar) is only a borough of de:Esslingen am Neckar, while de:Berkheim is a autonomous city. And moving this category would correspond to the lemma in de:wp. SteMicha (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus found, discussion dead for more than 3 years. --Achim (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Very funny category, fits to halloween. I looked at it, because I thought it shows naked peeople with hearts, livers and kidneys, creepy stuff. I was a bit disappointed. I got to say I oppose those artificial precensorship categories ( Delete), but if you all think they are necessary, at least rename this.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Or to explain my deletion vote more seriously: the category is random, the linked image could be categorized with other random categies as well, like Nude or partially nude people with harps, Nude or partially nude people with citterns, Nude or partially nude people with ancient musical instruments, Nude or partially nude people singing, Nude or partially nude people in Florence, Nude or partially nude people by Luca della Robbia and so on. Same applies for the other images. Someone seems to "know" in advance what images other users might not want to see and he/she/it decides to hide the images "for them".--Stanzilla (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- And to explain my concern more seriously, this category is absurd, just like this cartoon, only in the other direction. http://wurstball.de/static/ircview/pictures/d9876e88f52e382e798a51c03d00b10e.jpg --Stanzilla (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Or to explain my deletion vote more seriously: the category is random, the linked image could be categorized with other random categies as well, like Nude or partially nude people with harps, Nude or partially nude people with citterns, Nude or partially nude people with ancient musical instruments, Nude or partially nude people singing, Nude or partially nude people in Florence, Nude or partially nude people by Luca della Robbia and so on. Same applies for the other images. Someone seems to "know" in advance what images other users might not want to see and he/she/it decides to hide the images "for them".--Stanzilla (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Stanzilla: It's funny, but I don't think that means it's silly... certainly not any more so than the other categories in Category:Nude or partially nude people with musical instruments. If there is some concern about what kind of organs we're talking about, we could rename to Category:Nude or partially nude people with organs (music), but then we should also rename Category:People with organs to Category:People with organs (music). Otherwise, let's close this nearly 4-year-old discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently no one has strong feelings about this anymore. Leaving it as is. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The category "Cigar box art" (with only 2 files) could be merged into "Cigar box labels". Paulbe (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- There must be hundreds of nice cigar box art images out there; one day, they will be here. No need to merge. --Foroa (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now Category:Cigar_box_art contains 8 files, so the subtle distinction might be kept. --Achim (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Category contains 8 files that needn't to be merged. --Achim (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate category. Same goes for Category:Churches in the canton of Bourgtheroulde, Category:Churches in the canton of Cormeilles, Category:Churches in the canton of Bourgtheroulde, Category:Churches in the canton de Montfort-sur-Risle, Category:Churches in the canton of Pont-Audemer, Category:Churches in the canton of Quillebeuf, Category:Churches in the canton of Routot, Category:Churches in the canton of Saint-Georges-du-Vièvre. The files in it are often only categorized with this category, nobody that does not live in the canton knows what cities and villages are in it. That means, if someone writes an article about one of the villages in the canton it's possible, that he won't find the photo. I know that Category:Churches in Eure needs diffusion, but since it is a location category, why not rather categorize them by villages, like in Category:Cities and villages in Eure, example: Category:Churches in Bernay and Category:Churches in Brionne. I would be willing to create the new categories (Churches in nameoftown).--Stanzilla (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there are many images in the category Churches in Eure. And there are also a great number of villages in this département (not less than 675!). On the French Wikipedia, name of canton is indicated for each French village : so it is not difficult to find to which canton belongs a village, and so find an image if any. Anyway, I have already loaded many images of churches in Eure, and if another category is introduced, I will only indicate Churches in Eure. Best regards. Gérard Janot (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know there are many villages but I would be willing to sort them all in categories per commune, because I don't think they can be found by other people, if they are in canton categories. It is somehow contemplative for me to make categories and sort photos, so I wouldn't mind to do that. It wouldn't be difficult to find churches by commune categories, even if we had 675, because it's alphabetical. I really have no idea what towns are in which cantons and would never search for cantons if I need photos for an article of a commune, and nobody puts photos of churches in articles about cantons. The photos are stored here to be put in articles, or not? Yes, I know you are a very active contributor and I appreciate that. Regards,--Stanzilla (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is not forbidden having several categories for the same image. So, add your own categories if you want, and as many as you want, but do not erase the categories I put, because it is useful (for me) to determine which ones are lacking, and thus completing the collection. After all, what happens if the so called user doesn't know (and doesn't want to know) in which département - even in which province or country - a village is situated ? You might better have the 36000 villages of France or 350000 (?) villages of Europe in one category. Gérard Janot (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest I think Churches in Eure doesn't need a diffusion by location, because the images should have a category of the commune the church is situated in anyways. A subcategory of cities and villages in Eure, and that would be the location category. Another location category would not be needed. The diffusion Churches in Eure needs is by patron saint, style and/or century. But okay if you say the canton categories are "user categories" just for you, so you know which images lack, then I'd prefer they wouldn't appear in the normal church-category tree at all, but be categorized as Category:User galleries or Category:Churches in Eure by Canton (as a subcategory of Churches in Eure). But okay the second, I won't ask for their deletion or moving or whatever and just add the proper categories. It would be great if you wouldn't change other churches categories, you can add your "user categories". And I'll add commune categories and patron saint/century or style categories whenever possible.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh and there's no problem about 350000 categories for communes, because every commune should have a category under the Category:Cities and villages in Eure (and other départements respectively) anyways.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC) And there's already a metacategory called: Category:Churches in France by city.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Since there is only Template:Category definition: French commune and not for cantons, I am making a simple metacategory Category:Churches in Eure by canton that doesn't include a navigational template. I hope you'll like it.--Stanzilla (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh and there's no problem about 350000 categories for communes, because every commune should have a category under the Category:Cities and villages in Eure (and other départements respectively) anyways.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC) And there's already a metacategory called: Category:Churches in France by city.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest I think Churches in Eure doesn't need a diffusion by location, because the images should have a category of the commune the church is situated in anyways. A subcategory of cities and villages in Eure, and that would be the location category. Another location category would not be needed. The diffusion Churches in Eure needs is by patron saint, style and/or century. But okay if you say the canton categories are "user categories" just for you, so you know which images lack, then I'd prefer they wouldn't appear in the normal church-category tree at all, but be categorized as Category:User galleries or Category:Churches in Eure by Canton (as a subcategory of Churches in Eure). But okay the second, I won't ask for their deletion or moving or whatever and just add the proper categories. It would be great if you wouldn't change other churches categories, you can add your "user categories". And I'll add commune categories and patron saint/century or style categories whenever possible.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is not forbidden having several categories for the same image. So, add your own categories if you want, and as many as you want, but do not erase the categories I put, because it is useful (for me) to determine which ones are lacking, and thus completing the collection. After all, what happens if the so called user doesn't know (and doesn't want to know) in which département - even in which province or country - a village is situated ? You might better have the 36000 villages of France or 350000 (?) villages of Europe in one category. Gérard Janot (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know there are many villages but I would be willing to sort them all in categories per commune, because I don't think they can be found by other people, if they are in canton categories. It is somehow contemplative for me to make categories and sort photos, so I wouldn't mind to do that. It wouldn't be difficult to find churches by commune categories, even if we had 675, because it's alphabetical. I really have no idea what towns are in which cantons and would never search for cantons if I need photos for an article of a commune, and nobody puts photos of churches in articles about cantons. The photos are stored here to be put in articles, or not? Yes, I know you are a very active contributor and I appreciate that. Regards,--Stanzilla (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- @Stanzilla: Does this category still seem problematic for you? Most of the files are categorized both by "Chuches in the canton of x" and by the specific village or town where the church resides. Your meta-category is also helpful. If it doesn't require any further discussion, we can close this CFD. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- You can close the discussion. Cantons are probably still some kind of not very good way to sort things. I don't know if there is anybody willing to maintain these categories. But I am really too busy in rl atm to complain about things like that. And I'd rather the user who created the categories takes photographs and puts them in whatever categories he likes instead of him not taking photographs.--Stanzilla (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep. But Stanzilla's points are well taken. Images and non-meta-categories should always be categorized by other criteria as well, never just by canton. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-topical category. Maybe reapply all categories on each file, and make it a user category ? Jean-Fred (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I created the category because in the category "Men's underwear" there were too many similar pictures by this author, and the mother category was way too crowded and it needed a little reorganisation. You can reorganize them as you best please, the important point is to avoid the overcrowding in the mother category. So I don't mind the way you rename this particular sub-category. I wish you a good work. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Subcategory of "men's underwear" groups together a series of related photos in same setting by same photographer. I don't really find it objectionable, especially since no alternative suggestion for organizing has been offered. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept without action due to lack of better solutions of categorising. --Achim (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It is very confusing that there is a meta-category "Typewriters by manufacturer" (16C) and a meta-category "Typewriters by brand" (24C).The 2 meta-categories should be merged. Paulbe (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- merge (to where?) I realize the difference between brand and mfr, but their contamination is a far lesser problem than there is now. NVO (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Paulbe and NVO: I've just tagged Category:Typewriters by manufacturer to encourage further discussion. It seems to me that category is the problematic one. For a metacategory, all the sub-categories should be in the form "XXX (manufacturer) typewriters" but almost none of them are. The only properly formed sub-categories are Category:IBM Typewriters, Category:Olivetti typewriters, Category:Paillard S.A. typewriters, Category:Underwood typewriters, and Catgory:Łucznik typewriters. Of these, all but Paillard typewriters are also in Category:Typewriters by brand. I'm going to suggest that this category be redirected to Category:Typewriters by brand, and that Category:Typewriter manufacturers by name be created for the rest of the sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Typewriters_by_brand kept. Category:Typewriters_by_manufacturer redirected to Category:Typewriter manufacturers, with Category:Typewriter manufacturers by name created as a sub-category (along with existing Category:Typewriter manufacturers by country). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Possibly redundant to Category:Railway stations by year of establishment. I don't see the need for this parallel structure and I think it should be merged in, but I'd like a second opinion. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: It's only redundant if we know the exact year/decade of establishment for every railway station. It seems that isn't always clear, so it makes sense to have century categories as well? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- On closer inspection, however, it seems very redundant with Category:Train stations by century of establishment. Merge the two? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Merge the two. Riley Huntley (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Merged Category:Train_stations_by_century (and sub-categories) into Category:Train stations by century of establishment. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Northwest Coast masks is currently a subcategory of Category:Native American masks -- which is a subcategory of Category:Masks of the United States. This seems to me to be an unfortunate instance of US-centricism. First Nations of what we now call the Pacific Northwest lived in Alaska, Washington, Oregon -- and British Columbia. I suggest Category:Northwest Coast masks and Category:Native American masks should be renamed.
But more importantly Category:Native American masks should not be a subcategory of Category:Masks of the United States. I suggest Category:Native American masks be renamed something like Category:Masks of First Nations people of North America or Category:Masks of First Nations people of the Americas, and it should not be in Category:Masks of the United States but should be a member of Category:Masks by country.
Category:Northwest Coast masks is also a less than ideal category name. That name could also describe masks with maps of the Pacific Northwest on them. How about something like Category:Masks of First Nations peoples of the Pacific Northwest. I know that the term "First Nations" might seem odd to my American friends. It is widely used in Canada. I suggest it may be more accurate and more respectful description than "Native Americans". Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- As you explain, the Pacific Northwest includes coastal regions in both present- day Canada and the present- day United States. Why then should "Masks of First Nations peoples etc" be an appropriate title? Sounds like an unfortunate instance of Canada-centrism to me! (Joking)
- Category:Masks of Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast would be more appropriate, although it's an awful mouthful.
- Anyhow, although I personally have never been able to see what is wrong with the term "Native American" (it's something that gets hashed over again and again), I agree it's clear that it shouldn't be a subcat of "Masks of the United States". "Native American Masks" can also be renamed Category:Masks by indigenous peoples of the Americas, reflecting the Wikipedia article on visual arts. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Masks of Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and Category:Masks by indigenous peoples of the Americas would work for me. Do you agree that Category:Masks by indigenous peoples of the Americas could be an appropriate subcategory of Category:Masks by country? Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- The current name Category:Northwest Coast masks does not privilege either country, so there's no reason to change it. It should just have Category:Masks of Canada added to it (which I took the liberty of doing). A multinational category should probably be created, along the lines of other categories by media in Category:Indigenous art of the Americas. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- Comment. When thinking of the overarching pan-American category, it might be good to consider that the masks could be a subcat of Woodcarving, which would be a subcat of Sculpture. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- Nice to hear from you, Uyvsdi, I was hoping you'd weigh in. I also would also prefer that the category be kept "Northwest Coast Masks", mainly because I prefer short and simple titles except when absolutely necessary- this doesn't seem to be one of those cases. My first concern is "what would someone typing the title into a search bar expect to see?" However, I would be okay with Category:Pacific Northwest Coast Masks, or something like that, if others feel that "Northwest Coast" isn't specific enough.
- It seems we both agree that the Native American masks category should be renamed, so we can go ahead and do that. As a pan-national category, Category:Masks by indigenous peoples of the Americas can contain Category:Maya funerary masks and other files and categories that might not be appropriate for "Native American masks".
- @Geoswan, re your last question: Hmmm, it seems off, but there isn't currently a more appropriate category like Category:Masks by culture. We could create "Masks by culture", but on looking through the general "Masks" category I really don't see any other categories that would fit under that heading. I really don't know. Cheers, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and created Category:Masks by indigenous peoples of the Americas, which I made simply into a subcat of Category:Masks and Category:Indigenous art of the Americas. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
This seems to have been resolved when Uvsdi created Category:Masks by indigenous peoples of the Americas back in November 2011. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Despite "no consensus" reached on talk page, Category:It Wikisource books has been moved to this name. I ask to revert this process. See also Category:De Wikisource book and Category talk:German Wikisource books#Proposed rename to "German Wikisource books". Thank you Trixt (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I DO agree with Trixt. Please revert.--Silvio Gallio (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I DO agree w. both --Carlomorino (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I DO agree with Trixt: please revert. There was an ongoing discussion and I sense no real haste: an alternative name was proposed but consensus (at least three "keep" versus zero "move") wasn't actually so unclear. I wrote some reasonable lines of argumentations against this new name and they weren't confuted. Remembering that many users outside Commons are using this category, what's the deal of having a solution which is worse than the problem? - εΔω 16:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I DO agree with Trixt. Please revert. --Samuele Papa (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Trixt too--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I DO agree with Trixt. Please revert. --Xavier121 20:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I DO agree with Trixt. Please revert. --Aubrey (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Trixt. Since years we are changing all cat name from the form Italian or German etc. in the correct form of/in/from Italy, Germany, etc. So, IMO, there is no reason to introduce for "Wikisource books" this form which we are deleting/changing everywhere. --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Done: moved bck to Category:Italian Wikisource books. --JuTa 14:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Odd and superfluous category: it is almost impossible that someone could identify the date of manufacturing from a standing bus somewhere. The date when f.i. a bus was built is only written in official papers or somewhere on the chassis of a bus. So this category has no value since it is never possible to clear its content in order to get the content in the right categories 80.187.96.90 13:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Buses in Jordan built in unknown years. --Foroa (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I was notified of this discussion because I appear to be the creator of this category. Actually, as I remember, I moved it from some worse name only (this and similar category branches were built mainly by Marek Banach). I personally don't use such detailed and multifactor categorization of buses by year (I prefer categorization by type and by operator). However, I appreciate that categorization by year can have its benefits. Lifetime of buses is relatively short and development is fast - year of production (= year of the first registration) is a relevant criterion. Regarding availability of these data, many countries, authorities, manufacturers, operators and fans publish many lists of registered or operated buses, especially in public transport (but also other buses, see e. g. this one). Btw., also many buildings have not their year written on the facade and in some cases is unidentifiable, nevertheless categories like Churches by year of completion are very useful.
I see nothing "odd" on it. Generally, special categories for files with unknown (unidentified) parameter are very useful, effective and time-proven method which facilitate categorization process. Of course, not every missing paramater will be ascertained and not everybody is able to complete it but this doesn't mean that such category is non-functional. I think, also category trees like Churches built in unknown year would be meaningful. --ŠJů (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Btw., can some IP user which have no experiences with uploads and categorization (or [4]) well judge which categories are "odd" or "superfluous"? If you use your real username, your opinion would have more relevance. Haven't it? --ŠJů (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Most if not all of the images I saw in here have the registration plate visible. In the UK at least, it's very easy to determine build year from that info, I don't see why not for other countries. Just because people add this category because they can't determine the info, it doesn't mean others can't. At the very least, it serves a purpose during catscan searches, such as when you are trying to identify images without any build year cat - if you didn't have an unknown cat you would just keep picking up these same images aswell, which is a real waste of time. Ultra7 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It is worth to keep this category. It is relevant to list the buses by the year they were built. It may not seem relevant today but every piece of metadata we can add to a picture increments the quality of our picture collection. It is also possible that most of our bus pictures cannot be categorized today by date, but if we categorize by build year we need this category to throw there all the pictures with unknown build date. Keeping this category we are paving the way for someone to come and move its pictures to the correct category. You say that it is impossible to categorize because you need official papers. I do not think so. Here in Argentina you can find web sites dedicated to buses where people spots new buses posting pictures and data. That info should be enough for us to use. I would rather try to motivate these people to come here and help us. As a last resort, a motivated Wikimedian could get the info from the bus companies themselves. There is no need to cut the posibility of this categorization because someone in some country could not do it. Commons is a global project and the world is diverse. Barcex (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Theoretically excessively overpopulous category – thousands of images currently "belong" into this category, we don't need unknown/maintenance categories for every object characteristic. Speking of buses, the distance a bus already covered at the time of the photograph would be interesting too, still I don't plan to create an "unknown" category for that. FDMS 4 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per Barcex, the existance of this category will speedy up cleanup when someone with the knowledge to gets around to it. Riley Huntley (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Closed as stale. Certainly no consensus to delete despite years of discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I see that quite a lot of subcategories of this category are named like Category:Chasselas (cépage) or Category:Kerner (cépage). Shouldn't the qualifier in brackets be in English rather than in French? And do even we need it in all cases? For example, while there is a Category:Chasselas (the place in France), making some distinguishing qualifier necessary, there is no Category:Kerner, making the qualifier rather unnecessary. Rosenzweig τ 17:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- En:Kerner, just looking a bit further. Cépage is the international term of the professionals. --Foroa (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- We don't have a Category:Cépages however (that is a redirect), we have a Category:Grape varieties. --Rosenzweig τ 18:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
There is also Category:Vitis vinifera by variety. Should there be both Category:Vitis vinifera by variety and Category:Grape_varieties?
The spelling of some of those categories is also doubtful, e. g. Category:Gewurztraminer (cépage) (should be Gewürztraminer with an ü IMHO) and Category:Blauerportugieser (cépage) (should be Blauer Portugieser in two words). --Rosenzweig τ 17:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
For the acutal plants, the cultivars, why not just follow the practice of other plant genera and place them under Category:Vitis cultivars. The term "variety" as in Category:Vitis vinifera by variety is unlucky and should not be used. Variety is a botanical term not to be confused with the term cultivar. Uleli (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- The individual cultivars can be sorted as other plants; ex: Category:Vitis 'Pinot Gris'. Uleli (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that wine making professionals use cépage and variety; they are not taxonomists. --Foroa (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Still, it is not what is recommended, neither by International Code of Botanical Nomenclature nor International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Are Commons ready to make a decision? Uleli (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously, the main reason why this category has been made is to make a link to the various types of wines and wineries. It doesn't help to hide them under names that are completely different then from en:List_of_grape_varieties that refers to En:International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. --Foroa (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do understand your point even though nothing has be be hidden by a redirection, also the term cultivar (Latin) is more international than "grape variety", "cépage" or "rebsort". Uleli (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously, the main reason why this category has been made is to make a link to the various types of wines and wineries. It doesn't help to hide them under names that are completely different then from en:List_of_grape_varieties that refers to En:International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. --Foroa (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Still, it is not what is recommended, neither by International Code of Botanical Nomenclature nor International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Are Commons ready to make a decision? Uleli (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: Category:Vitis cultivars was redirected to Category:Grape varieties in late August 2012, not long after this discussion stalled. The overlap with Category:Vitis vinifera by variety still exists nearly four years later. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Done: I am closing this discussion as it seems to have stalled and does not reflect the current situation. If needed, please open a new discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Many of the category names in this category, along with similar categories (such as Category:Churches in Portugal, Category:Chapels in Portugal, Category:Castles in Portugal, etc. are written in Portuguese). I have attempted to rename them in accordance with the Commons:Language policy and have been impeded by a user who does not respond to my messages, and systematically reverts content, even by the Siebot/Delinker command. Since this user is a EN-3 level user, with a proficiency in the Portuguese language (PT-1), I suspect that this drive is purely made as a form of nationalism or POV-editing. While I do not agree with translating obscure names to English (which would cause confusion), my renaming of categories has nonetheless followed the stated language policy. Some categories within the Portuguese namespace can not be renamed to English without losing all sense, such as Category:Anta Grande de Zambujeira, but others, such as "chapels", "churches", "cathedrals" or "forts" can easily be renamed to English variants by just adjusting with "Church of...", "Fort of...", etc. In the case of this example, I have already proposed the renaming of all subcategories to, for example, "Sé Cathedral (Lisbon)" as an apolitical variant that can easily be interpreted by any user, and drops the "de/da/dos", corrects it to English "cathedral" and simplifies the naming.
Since the WikiLove Monuments in Portugal campaign, there has been a creation of new categories with purely Portuguese-only names in the Category:Portugal name-space. I seek with this submission, a definitive and clear decision on the role of the Commons:Language policy as it applies to this situation, and other situations in the Portuguese name-space. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support for stricter English naming rule application for all buildings that might have international connections. Proposed names are indeed a good compromise. --Foroa (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just to try to explain why so many categories were created with portuguese names. During the WLM2011 campaign we have been using the IGESPAR and SIPA databases to gather data on the monuments. Of course the names of the monuments in the databases is in Portuguese and so the tools we were using used the names according to the database. While I have no objections to renaming the categories to english, I just advise care not to rename it to something that would be difficult to find for both portuguese and english speakers. That would be the worst of both worlds. GoEThe (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Neutral While I don't oppose to renaming of these categories, the explaination from GoEThe should be taken in account. It should be clear that it wasn't any type of POV, but rather a consequence of having to group 16000 images - we rather have them grouped in a category with some name, even if it desn't make sense, than leaving them loose on Commons. Having said that, is there any way of tracking these renamings? Can it be ensured that the categories do not simply disappear, so we can track the new ones (because we already do for the current ones at an external tool and it would such a waste of volunteer work to ignore that...)? Best, -- Nuno Tavares ☜ PT 10:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes Nuno there are a way. We can use {{Categoryredirect}} in the portuguese title and move all to the english ones. And if is done that way, I Support the renaming and even can help with it. Béria Lima msg 10:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes Nuno there are a way. We can use {{Categoryredirect}} in the portuguese title and move all to the english ones. And if is done that way, I
GoEThe brought up an important issue, that I wish to address. I had begun renaming these Cathedrals as follows: "Sé Cathedral (x)", where "x" was the name of the location. He, rightly, informed me that "Sé" meaning "Episcopal see" or Episcopal Seat" seemed redundant in this context. I therefore request guidance on this issue. My preference for translation would continue to be for "Sé Cathedral (x)" since the term has been used in anecdotal conversations (and literature), although I suggest that alternatives such as: "Cathedral (x)" or "Cathedral of x" would be more literal translations. I am not too partial to "x Cathedral", since it would not assist discovery. Opinions?
Also, is it really necessary to have identifiable cathedrals be in the "Churches" section as well as "Cathedrals", since they are are cathedrals in name? Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Cathedral naming tend to be very much country dependent (see Category:Cathedrals in Italy). Sé is acceptable to link with popular naming in Portugal and to indicate if the Cathedral is still a real one (the ones that lost their Episcopal status could omit the Sé).
- Commons preference for disambiguation in such cases: "Sé Cathedral, x", or "Sé Cathedral (x)" (in general following the style of the related country wikipedia, language independent). Variations using of/in/from/de/de/di/da is a source of mixups.
- For many people, churches are churches, and they don't really know the (not visible) difference between a cathedral or basilica. So no harm on classifying them under churches too. --Foroa (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I am strongly convinced the categories should be named homogenously, i. e. the whole title should be always in one language. In this case it could be either Portuguese or English (well, I would personally prefere Esperanto as a neutral solution, but most users don't speak it). Mixing two languages make understanding the names impossible for users not speaking Portuguese and English simultaneously, thus for absolute majority of the visitors. Also automatical translation (such as Google Translate etc.) isn't usable in those cases. Both Category:Capelinha das Aparições (Fátima) and Category:Chapel of Apparitions (Fátima) are good, Category:Chapel of the Aparicões (Fátima) definitely not. Try to empathize with people not understanding both the languages – would you really appreaciate names like Category:Church of Proměnění Páně or even Category:Church of Преображения Господня, if the second part doesn't represent any idiom or special local name but just “Transfiguration”? Shouldn't we write Category:Church of the Transfiguration directly? Yes, the multilinguality itself is a problem – please, let’s not intensify it. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Contribution added to Commons talk:Naming categories – Mixing languages in category titles. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done: I am closing this stalled discussion. Please refer to the language policy if in doubt. If you think there is still more to discuss, please open a new discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)