Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2013/05
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 |
| 2025 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive May 2013
Reasons for discussion request --Zajano (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I suggest to delete this category. This is a wrong name of this category. I created a new category: Category:Matej Kristín and removed files there. Thank you.
Redirected, bad name. --rimshottalk 21:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
underpopulated category, unnecessary Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can provide further images of factory and headquarters if necessary. --Gikü (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- even 2 or 3 would allow the category to stay, as we simply dont want single image categories, which dont help the project. we dont have to show the company is notable, we just need to have more than 1 image.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such minimum rule on Commons, see for example Category:People by name, and would only make real sense for deeper categorisation without other categories/dimensions, such as interiors of buildings. Images encapsulated in a category are just much easier to insert and list in multiple categories. But the name needs disambiguation as there exist a company and a commune with that name. The number of images is not a proof of notability, the fact that it has a wiki article much more. Few companies want their images in the public domain. --Foroa (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- I thought differently. unless someone else feels this categorization is unnecessary, who is more familiar than i am with guidelines here, i withdraw my request.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such minimum rule on Commons, see for example Category:People by name, and would only make real sense for deeper categorisation without other categories/dimensions, such as interiors of buildings. Images encapsulated in a category are just much easier to insert and list in multiple categories. But the name needs disambiguation as there exist a company and a commune with that name. The number of images is not a proof of notability, the fact that it has a wiki article much more. Few companies want their images in the public domain. --Foroa (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- even 2 or 3 would allow the category to stay, as we simply dont want single image categories, which dont help the project. we dont have to show the company is notable, we just need to have more than 1 image.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn. That a category is underpopulated is in itself not a reason to remove it. If there is no reasonable expectation of the expansion of the category, that is worthy of discussion –moogsi (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
User:颐园新居 said the proposed new name (Category:Tower of Buddhist Incense) is more specific. I don't know much about it. Makecat 08:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Both names seem to have currency in referring to Fo Xhang Ge, but Category:Tower of Buddhist Incense seems to be much more common. Would support a move to there with a redirect –moogsi (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Already deleted --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
empty category, there were no Škoda 3Tr trolleybuses in operation in Ostrava city Harold (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
deleted –moogsi (blah) 22:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
accidental creation Themightyquill (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
deleted –moogsi (blah) 16:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request : Mistake creation. Exist before with Category:North London derby. --Guiggz (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
deleted –moogsi (blah) 16:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Arbitary category because there is no to differentiation from parent category "Mars exploration" Avron (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted because it is a redundant category to the category "Mars exploration". --High Contrast (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The counties of Scotland are only "former" in the sense that they are no longer the current legal administrative divisions of Scotland. However, they still have major cultural significance which makes the name "former" something of a misnomer. En.wiki uses w:Shires of Scotland. "Counties of Scotland" may be somewhat ambiguous because it could be confused for the current political subdivions of Scotland, the w:Council Areas of Scotland. –moogsi (blah) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Historic counties of Scotland ? --Foroa (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I should add that this is due to a concern raised at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Scotire, where also was suggested Category:Traditional counties of Scotland. Suddenly no-one has an opinion any more :) –moogsi (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- We've just had a weekend, where not everyone is around, and I for one am in the middle of a huge family history project which is taking pretty much all my time to finish. I have an opinion, and when I have a little more spare time, I'll let everyone have the benefit of it. And Scotire (talk · contribs) has just commented on the category's talk page, so I've directed him here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. And I apologize: that comment was not intended as criticism of anyone in particular :) –moogsi (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Under the Act the counties were disestablished (their status was altered), but that did not mean that they were "former", it meant that their roles in administration were altered, and that their place-name remained the same, their actual placenames were not "disestablished " dis · es · tab · lish (ds-stblsh) tr.v. dis · es · tab · lished, dis · es · tab · lish · ing, dis · es · tab · lish · es 1. To "alter the status" of (something established by authority or general acceptance). These counties' place-names still exist within the District Council Administration areas and are not "former". "Traditional counties" would be a correct description, if any description is required at all. Scotire (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. And I apologize: that comment was not intended as criticism of anyone in particular :) –moogsi (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- We've just had a weekend, where not everyone is around, and I for one am in the middle of a huge family history project which is taking pretty much all my time to finish. I have an opinion, and when I have a little more spare time, I'll let everyone have the benefit of it. And Scotire (talk · contribs) has just commented on the category's talk page, so I've directed him here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I take Scotire's point that they are not really "Former", in the sense that they still exist in some form. However, I don't think "Traditional" is the correct term since they were only formalised as local government areas in 1889, having been created from the various commission areas. I'm taking this from the Wikipedia article w:Shires of Scotland, so forgive my precis, but I think the latter would most closely match en.wp's article, and clarify exactly the scope of our category. For the time being, I leave it open as to what I think these categories should contain, because I think the name seems to be most divisive issue. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- You still cannot separate "Administrative" with "Traditional". Counties became a "basis of local government", alongside burghs, when 34 county councils were created in Scotland by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889, councils being the operative word not counties. The counties became the "basis of local government" which is entirely different to "being created counties". We are talking about Counties not their administration. Scottish shires each sent Commissioners (MPs) to the Scottish Parliament. They trace their origins to the mormaerdoms, stewartries and sheriffdoms of the High Middle Ages. The administrative counties resembled the “traditional shires / counties” of Scotland, but not exactly.
- So what would be wrong with "Shires of Scotland" as a category? That's what I'm proposing. If you would deal with that instead of veering off into a detailed history lesson, this discussion might be closed, remembering that we are dealing with categorising images, not politics. It would also help if you would thread and indent the discussion properly. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- You still cannot separate "Administrative" with "Traditional". Counties became a "basis of local government", alongside burghs, when 34 county councils were created in Scotland by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889, councils being the operative word not counties. The counties became the "basis of local government" which is entirely different to "being created counties". We are talking about Counties not their administration. Scottish shires each sent Commissioners (MPs) to the Scottish Parliament. They trace their origins to the mormaerdoms, stewartries and sheriffdoms of the High Middle Ages. The administrative counties resembled the “traditional shires / counties” of Scotland, but not exactly.
- Shires of Scotland would be most suitable, thank you. People seem to confuse Council areas (which change according to populations and revenues), with the placenames within those councils, i.e. Shires. Scotire (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Already deleted --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I created by mistake without knowing there is another similar category:Town festivals in Catalonia Kippelboy (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirect already added --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This curious category was created to house the abundance of compositions of Pope Francis' arms, but most of those have been deleted by now. I have removed the last file from this category, because it now serves as the first version of his coat of arms. Category:Coats of arms of Franciscus, Pope is quite orderly now, so I don't think this still serves a purpose. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Coats of arms of Franciscus, Pope category has Category:1 eight rays in heraldry category in this time. But in File:Coat of Arms of Pope Francis (first version).svg file "1 eight ray" doesn't exist. Skim (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that categorisation be moved to the files in question, in that case? It seems quite excessive to keep a category for a single file, with a name that wouldn't fit. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted, empty, as per Lemmens, Tom, --rimshottalk 21:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there another word for arcades that are places that house games etc - as in this photo File:Wonderland Arcade, 1200 Grand Ave. Kansas City, Missouri - NARA - 283779.jpg?? Mjrmtg (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- They are usually called amusement arcades (or at least they are here in England). We already have Category:Amusement arcades in the United States. --Zundark (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Resolved –moogsi (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no such district named Bundi Jhalawar. Nor do en:Bundi district or en:Jhalawar district pages talk of any such district in the past. Category is empty at present. Rahul Bott (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted –moogsi (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this category? At any time, they can get married and then they will no longer be single. We're supposed to keep track of who is married and who isn't? Seems a little too much. Mjrmtg (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete All people are single in the beginning and end of their lives. This is not the role of a media server to maintain those things. --Foroa (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)- Delete Not useful for finding anything, too difficult to maintain –moogsi (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted for the reasons given. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Gábor Agárdy Louperivois Ψ @ 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected –moogsi (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Information on performance and construction is either lacking or not accessible 99.186.22.192 14:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
This kind of information can be found at Wikipedia w:Toyota LiteAce. Commons is not an encyclopedia –moogsi (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Al-Bawwâb Louperivois Ψ @ 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected –moogsi (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Leonardo Alenza Y Nieto Louperivois Ψ @ 16:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected –moogsi (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Mitch Allan Louperivois Ψ @ 17:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like a typo; redirect to correct spelling. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected –moogsi (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Tragelaphus spekii in Prague Zoo? (not spekEii) --Хомелка (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Moved –moogsi (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This category has been superseded by Category:A. P. J. Abdul Kalam in 2011 and should either be deleted or redirected to the new category. Rahul Bott (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-admin closure. Already speedied by User:Sven Manguard with the rationale "empty". Rahul Bott (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Empty category Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty category. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Contains only an empty category, also nominated Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty category. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this even legal? And no, this is not about appropriateness, but simple law. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why would it be illegal ? As the title says, these files are ethnographic pictures showing populations and tribes where toplessness (and nudity for some of them) are not seen as an offense or a problem. How could you/we tell them that there's something illegal in that ? It's somehow a sort of despise to judge them (and their nudity) on the basis of occidental visions and laws. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yet again this is not about morals, but about the legal system. Commons files are hosted in the US, so US law applies (not "tribal" law). If it is illegal to show naked minors (in the US sense, below 18) on US websites, then it applies to Commons as well, whatever the context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is ambiguous whether nude photos of minors are illegal in themselvs, but "sensuous" photos of minors are illegal, and applies to many of the photos in the following category: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Orientalist_nude_photographs_by_Lehnert_%26_Landrock And yes, I am aware that all those Berber girls would now be older than my great grandmother. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yet again this is not about morals, but about the legal system. Commons files are hosted in the US, so US law applies (not "tribal" law). If it is illegal to show naked minors (in the US sense, below 18) on US websites, then it applies to Commons as well, whatever the context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept. This category appears to be a perfectly reasonable way of classifying these particular images. Insofar as the request relates to the allowability or otherwise of the images themselves, that could be raised at RFD. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This category, or many of its images, should be in the tree, "Images from periodicals", since that is a logical place for users to look for them. Hamblin (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Added category "Images from periodicals". This discussion is closed. Hamblin (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
merge with Category:Cheesepress and rename Category:Cheese presses Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Cheese presses. --rimshottalk 06:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Cheese press and rename Category:Cheese presses Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Cheese presses. --rimshottalk 06:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposed move to Category:Embattled ordinaries - current name is tautological Wilhelm meis (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Support move to Category:Embattled ordinaries, and a redirect at Category:Battled ordinaries –moogsi (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)- Support - As the creator of this category but no expert in English heraldry, I agree with the proposed renaming. Bruno (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Embattled ordinaries. I have added a description to the parent category, so that someone searching for battled would at least find that one. A redirect at Category:Battled ordinaries should not be needed, as that wording seems largely unused anyhow. --rimshottalk 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This ship was completed and commissioned in 2010, see [1], but apparently the category was mistakenly created for 2011. There's already an aptly named Category:Uthlande (ship, 2010) so we should delete the erroneous 2011 category. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ralf Roletschek may have mixed this up with Uthlande's sister ship Schleswig-Holstein that was in fact built in Rostock in 2011. De728631 (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I think there is need to discuss about this category move. De728631, thanks for your tireless work in categorizing ships! Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually "Category:Uthlande (ship, 2010)" did already exist when the other one was created a month ago. The correct category was created by Stunteltje in August 2011. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, the now empty category. --rimshottalk 21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
underpopulated category, not necessary Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure more than 1 pic will be uploaded eventually. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept, not empty, makes it possible to find the picture through Category:Chocolate by country. --rimshottalk 17:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Any Korean speakers got an idea about the purpose of this category? Machine translation give me "Scenic images of South Korea". –moogsi (blah) 13:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently content was moved from Category:명승지, which never existed –moogsi (blah) 14:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and upmerge to existing parent (tourism in South Korea), or replace with Category:Scenery, or rename to Category:Scenery of South Korea per Category:Scenery of Hong Kong (that said, I consider the scenery categories pure rubbish... way too subjective). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- This category contains 6 pictures, all from the Nokdong Seowon, and are also member of Category:Nokdong Seowon. This category itself is member of
- Category:Seowon and Category:Daegu, themselves member of ... (conveying a Korean point of view about this Seowon)
- Category:Visitor attractions in Daegu, itself member of ... (conveying a tourist point of view about this Seowon)
- And therefore Category:한국의 명승지 이미지 (the category itself, not its content !!!) can be simply deleted. Pldx1 (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, as all images contained in there were already better categorized at Category:Nokdong Seowon. --rimshottalk 17:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete as a nonsense made-up name. Paddle wheels are not propellers, they are distinct from this. Category:Paddle wheels is perfectly adequate already. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support an upmerge into Category:Paddle wheels. A "propeller" as a mechanism is always the screw-type that rotates perpendicular to the direction of travel. However Category:Ship propellers includes propellers in the sense of "propulsion mechanism" and includes pump-jets, paddlewheels.... however there is no need to add a qualifier, it's already very clear what a paddle wheel is –moogsi (blah) 16:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- As I have already exposed on Andy’s discussion page, paddle wheel propeller is not a term just made up, and contrary to his statement, restricting the expression paddle wheel to wheels driven by engines is not adequate, as this is certainly not the case for paddle wheel mills. --Abderitestatos (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yesterday I had to revert your completely incorrect attempt to merge water wheels into paddle wheels. Please stop this, and don't try it again until you understand the difference between them.
- Paddle wheels are driven by engines and cause a water flow. They are used to propel boats, but some (like the algae farm example) are also rarely found as simple pumps, on land.
- Water wheels are driven by water flow and provide mechanical power to a mill etc. They are not used on boats.
- Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yesterday I had to revert your completely incorrect attempt to merge water wheels into paddle wheels. Please stop this, and don't try it again until you understand the difference between them.
- And why do you keep repeating what I just invalidated? --Abderitestatos (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Googling for a random phrase and finding a match from a Siamese-English Dictionary is not generally considered reliable evidence for anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dictionaries are not generally considered reliable evidence for proving existence or meaning of a word? And engineers guides, patents etc. are not either? You cannot be serious. --Abderitestatos (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, neither Category:Paddle wheels nor Category:Paddle wheel propellers belong in Category:Paddle steamers, because there are paddle-wheel motor ships, too. --Abderitestatos (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I thought it was obvious what a paddle wheel is, in fact I almost included in my last comment that they are definitely distinct from water wheels, even though they are similar things in principle. The definitions Andy Dingley gives are correct. There is maybe some confusion because the blades on a water wheel can be called paddles (by analogy because they're flat surfaces for resisting water). I think the strong association between "paddle" and propulsion (the definition of the verb "paddle", the primary meaning of the noun) is enough to keep them logically separate (a water wheel does not do anything like paddling, for example). But really the fact that they are semantically separate is demonstrated simply by just doing an image search: "water wheel" brings up a lot of static mechanisms, "paddle wheel" gives you a lot of pictures of boats. There is no confusion between the terms in general use –moogsi (blah) 16:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Google search results above have expired, but as long as we're playing that game:
- "paddle wheel propeller" 23,700 results, mostly in the context of other methods of propulsion
- "paddle wheel" 1,170,000 results
- "paddle wheel mill" 57,600 results
- "watermill" 3,370,000 results
- "paddle wheel propeller" 23,700 results, mostly in the context of other methods of propulsion
- I don't think there's an argument for renaming anything unless you're arguing that a "paddle wheel" and a "paddle wheel propeller" are different things –moogsi (blah) 16:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Google search results above have expired, but as long as we're playing that game:
As seen here, for example, water wheels may be distinguished into bucket wheels and paddle wheels; why should categories be prevented from reflecting this? A blade wheel on the other hand seems to be another quite different construction. --Abderitestatos (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Because it's confusing, that's why. Look in any English dictionary (and preferably not in one passage of a book about the history of kitchens which is discussing water wheels in the context of other water wheels) and you will find something like:
- paddle wheel noun. a large steam-driven wheel with boards around its circumference, situated at the stern or side of a ship so as to propel the ship through the water by its rotation.
- This is the single definition given (in the OED), because, out of context, this is what this word means. Yes, in a specific context it might mean something else, e.g. "a water wheel with paddles instead of buckets", or "any wheel with paddles on it", but that is not what it generally means. The categories should not be "prevented from reflecting this" difference in types of water wheels, if you think it is necessary, but the term "paddle wheel" is taken. It's occupied. You can't make it mean something else, it's nonsense –moogsi (blah) 23:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
But there is not even a substantial difference in construction; any paddle wheel from a ship could just as well be used as a mill wheel, and vice versa, so there must be a category that subsumes all kinds of paddle wheels. And what other name might be suitible for such a category than Category:Paddle wheels? --Abderitestatos (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense. You might as well claim that because a boat hull could be used as a chicken coop (many have been), we should merge boats into chicken coops!
- If you really don't understand that waterwheels, watermills, paddle wheels and boats are different items and should be categorized separately, then please just stay away from such categories altogether. Andy Dingley (talk)
Paddle wheel propeller is the specific term for the items displayed there, which is, as exposed above, also used outside Wikicommons, and that is consistent with its upper category Ship propellers; Paddle wheel, by contrast, is ambiguous and therefore should only be used as a name for an umbrella category. Besides, as illustrated by the image below, Category:Paddle steamers as a superior category is just wrong, so would you kindly desist from reinserting it again. --Abderitestatos (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Andy_Dingley Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've reversed the heirarchy so that paddle wheel steamers is now a subcategory of paddle wheels. Although paddle steamers where the most common incarnation, there were side wheel vessels powered by man and animal treadwheels. Nor are paddles propellers, that category has been removed and the category marine propulsion substituted. The category passenger ships have been removed from paddle steamers as many early warships were of the side paddle type.--KTo288 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Paddle wheels. Also, the hierarchy has cleaned up by KTo288. --rimshottalk 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Hamburg Museum was contested by User:Oursana; no longer an unambiguous fix per Commons:Rename a category Christoph Braun (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Das Museum hat immer noch den stiftungsrechtlichen Eigennamen "Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte". "Hamburg Museum" ist lediglich die Bezeichnung im Werbeauftritt. Deshalb sollte der offizielle Name - analog zum Artikel auf de:wp - auch Kategorienname bleiben. --Mogelzahn (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- +1--Oursana (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte renamed itself to Hamburg Museum in April, 2013 (see German press release). This CfD nomination succeeds an ongoing discussion on German Wikipedia. Opposing opinions on German Wikipedia are based on a pending change to the endowment treaty (the Hamburg Museum is part of the foundation Stiftung Historische Museen Hamburg). The discussion on German Wikipedia has not been resolved so far.
- Commons:Categories and Commons:Language policy do not focus on this particular case. Relying on the proposal as in Commons:Naming categories#Language would lead to renaming the category to Hamburg Museum IMHO. Google Books ngram viewer for 'Hamburg Museum' Google Books ngram viewer for 'Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte'.
- Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Christoph,auch durch Wiederholung wird es nicht richtiger. Das Museum verwendet die Bezeichnung "Hamburg Museum" in der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, wie sich aus der Pressemitteilung eindeutig ergibt. Es ist nicht der neue Name. An keiner Stelle spricht die Pressemitteilung davon, dass das Museum umbenannt worden ist. Klar, das Museum hat sich einen neuen Rufnamen zugelegt, der trendiger klingen soll, so wie Lena Meyer-Landrut auf ihren Platten als "Lena" firmiert und doch weiterhin einen auch Nachnamen hat. Von einer offiziellen Umbenennung ist jedoch nirgendwo etwas zu lesen. Und diese Umbenennung wäre aus meiner Sicht die Voraussetzung für eine Umbenennung der Kategorie. --Mogelzahn (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wäre nett, wenn du auf Englisch schriebest. /// Would be kind of you to write in English. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Mogelzahn, wie am 7. Mai bereits hier geschrieben, ist mir nicht klar, was du als "Beweis" der "offiziellen" Umbenennung akzeptierst. Wäre echt knorke von dir dazu eine Rückmeldung zu bekommen. Die Änderung des Stiftungsvertrages kann ich auch nicht beschleunigen, aber gerne eine schriftliche Stellungnahme seitens der Direktorin anfragen. /// Mogelzahn, as I wrote on May 7 here already, I don't quite understand what kind of "evidence" you want to see in order to prove an "official" renaming. Would be jolly good of you to get your response on this. I'm not able to accelerate the change of the treaty of endowment, but would be happy to request an official statement from the museum's director. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- 1) Mein Englisch reicht nicht aus, um micht entsprechend auszudrücken (siehe auch meine Benutzerseite), verstehen kann ich es aber hinreichend. Dies ist im übrigen ein mehrsprachiges und kein englischsprachiges Projekt und deshalb sollte über die Umbenennung einer Kategorie, die ein in Deutschland befindliches Objekt betrifft auch auf deutsch diskutiert werden. 2) Hinreichend wäre in jedem Falle z.B. eine Veröffentlichung im Amtlichen Anzeiger oder eine Mitteilung des Senats an die Bürgerschaft oder ein Auszug aus dem Stiftungsregister oder sonst irgendein offizielles Dokument. Aber auch eine rezipierte Pressemitteilung der Stiftung Historische Museen, aus der hervorgeht, dass es sich wirklich um eine Umbenennung und nicht nur um ein Vermarktungslabel handelt würde mir schon reichen. Die von Dir immer wieder verlinkte Pressemitteilung bezieht sich aber lediglich auf das Vermarktungslabel. Dies stellt im übrigen auch Rike Wolf in ihrem neuen Hamburg-Buch fest, in dem sie etwas spöttisch schreibt, es handele sich bei "Hamburg Museum" lediglich um eine einen halboffiziellen Namen, der amerikanischen Touristen, die das "ch" im Wort "Geschichte" nicht aussprechen könnten, die Aussprache erleichtern solle. Das Museum heiße aber weiterhin "Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte". --Mogelzahn (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Christoph,auch durch Wiederholung wird es nicht richtiger. Das Museum verwendet die Bezeichnung "Hamburg Museum" in der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, wie sich aus der Pressemitteilung eindeutig ergibt. Es ist nicht der neue Name. An keiner Stelle spricht die Pressemitteilung davon, dass das Museum umbenannt worden ist. Klar, das Museum hat sich einen neuen Rufnamen zugelegt, der trendiger klingen soll, so wie Lena Meyer-Landrut auf ihren Platten als "Lena" firmiert und doch weiterhin einen auch Nachnamen hat. Von einer offiziellen Umbenennung ist jedoch nirgendwo etwas zu lesen. Und diese Umbenennung wäre aus meiner Sicht die Voraussetzung für eine Umbenennung der Kategorie. --Mogelzahn (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- +1--Oursana (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Proposed rename seems reasonable. I don't speak German; how might this be ambiguous? Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose renaming to "Hambug Museum". A casual user would not be able to differentiate between "Hambug Museum", "Musems in Hamburg" or any other museum in Hamburg. --Foroa (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Shall we rename Category:Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery then? And Category:Walsall Art Gallery? Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- The assumption is, that implementing the new name (as part of the new corporate identity) is part of Hamburg Museum's PR, rather than an "official" name. Mogelzahn argues that the name in the endowment treaty constitutes the "official" name. Yet, I fail to see how endowment treaties are relevant for renaming categories based on our current guidelines and policies.
- Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Foroa I assume you meant "Hamburg Museum" rather than "Hambug Museum". By your logic we would have to rename Category:Museum of London because it looks similar to Category:Museums in London. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Museum of London" is a poor name indeed, but long standing and still better than "London Museum". Commons is not here to support marketing campaigns or to give the impression that there is only one important museum in Hamburg. And after all, it is the name on the German Wikipedia. --Foroa (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I can follow your logic. "Museum of London" is the actual name of the museum. It's not about making something up or support marketing campaigns. Also I don't see why "Hamburg Museum" implies that it's the only important museum in Hamburg. Per Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_Wikipedia it doesn't really matter if it's the name on German Wikipedia - the name of English Wikipedia is "Hamburg Museum" and the name might be different in other Wikipedias. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nein, das ist falsch. Der aktuelle Name des Museums ist weiterhin "Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte". Das Haus vermarktet sich lediglich selbst unter dem Label "Hamburg Museum". --Mogelzahn (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I can follow your logic. "Museum of London" is the actual name of the museum. It's not about making something up or support marketing campaigns. Also I don't see why "Hamburg Museum" implies that it's the only important museum in Hamburg. Per Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_Wikipedia it doesn't really matter if it's the name on German Wikipedia - the name of English Wikipedia is "Hamburg Museum" and the name might be different in other Wikipedias. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose renaming to "Hamburg Museum": As mentioned by Mogelzahn Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte seems still be the official name. According to Commons:Naming categories#Language (For subjects of only local relevance, proper names in the original language are used generally.) the official name is IMHO correct for category - Hamburg Museum without hyphen is not a proper local name. --Ajepbah (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose renaming to "Hamburg Museum": as I agree with all especially Mogelzahn, Ajepbah and Foroa, except Christoph Braun, who really doesn't put foreward any valid arguments for his renaming, even argues against legally valid documents as the endowment treaty. Like a company has to be adressed to by its registered name, the same applies of course to Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte. I am sure that the marketing changes considering the museum's name, have not been noticed by many people in Hamburg. So I doubt, that people know what is Hamburg Museum. And as I stated already on German WP, I did not like the solo sudden movement of the files. cfd should have been first.
- And about the En: WP : as Foroa said the German WP has the key role in naming the museum.
- Furthermore the en:WP doesn't give any references for the allegedly renaming and references refer even to Museum of Hamburg History:
- The museum adopted the name hamburgmuseum, and initials hm, in 2006. In 2008 the museum runs a program called hm freunde(Society of friends of the museum of Hamburg history).[1]
- ↑ Society of Friends of the Museum of Hamburg History, hamburgmuseum, accessed December 2011
- See WP Project Site Wikipedia:Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte and museum's adress.
- On the official Hamburg site the museum is called hamburgmuseum (Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte).
- See museumsdienst-hamburg.de: Hamburg Museum – Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte.
- See Museen für Geschichte: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte
- See de.facebook.com/hamburgmuseum: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte / hamburgmuseum
- See sub.uni-hamburg.de/bibliotheken:Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte (hamburgmuseum)
- See telephone directory: hamburgmuseum (Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte)
- As to the above mentioned Press release, the museum exactly states no renaming: von nun an konsequenten Verwendung des ,Rufnamens‘ Hamburg Museum verfährt das traditionsreiche Haus ähnlich wie andere bedeutende stadtgeschichtliche Museen z.B. in Amsterdam, Wien oder Oslo, die ihre Namen knapp, einprägsam und in alle Sprachen leicht übersetzbar formuliert machen. Für administrative Zwecke wie z.B. Urkunden, Geschäftspapiere u.ä. wird das vierzeilige Logo verwendet, für Presse und Marketing die zweizeilige Variante. That means, the Museum wants to use a given name besides the official name, which is still valid.
- It is not WP or commons who does the renaming, commons only follows the official name and that is without any doubt still Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte. Contrary to Christoph Brauns opinion the renaming of cultural institutions in Hamburg works different as could have been noticed by the renaming of Laeiszhalle from Musikhalle and Hamburg Ballett from Hamburger Ballett. And Hamburg has only one Ballett and many museums. --Oursana (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)(changes)Oursana (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept, as per discussion and precedent on deWP. --rimshottalk 18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Rename to 'Category:The New Art Gallery Walsall'; the full and correct name of the venue, (disclosure: it's where I am currently Wikipedian in Residence). Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- This looks uncontroversial, simply create the new category, move the files (e.g. using cat-a-lot) and leave a {{Seecat}} redirect. --rimshottalk 18:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:The New Art Gallery Walsall. --rimshottalk 18:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Change to 'Varengeville-sur-Mer by Claude Monet', to avoid confusion with Varangéville Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can't really imagine any objection to this; I would think this can proceed as a non-controversial move. - Jmabel ! talk 23:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Varengeville-sur-Mer by Claude Monet. --rimshottalk 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Misleading and unnecessary redirect. Railcar T4 of neg is an Austrian type ÖBB 5047, while NE 81 is an unrelated German type of vehicle. De728631 (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am confused. Does the neg even have NE 81 stock? I suggest just removing this category. I have no clue, why I originally created it. --Sebari (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- They never had an NE 81 in stock. There used to be one on the Niebüll-Tønder line but that was operated and owned by NOB. De728631 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Marcantonio Bassetti Louperivois Ψ @ 23:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Marcantonio Bassetti in June. --rimshottalk 16:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
underpopulated cagtegory, not necessary Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Pierre-Charles Baquoy Louperivois Ψ @ 21:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Technically, Category:Pierre-Charles Baquoy is the duplicate as it was created later than this page. Suggestion: Merge, if indeed the two pages refer to the same engraver, using the correct name, which-ever it is. Wikiborg4711 (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep as a category redirect. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept as a redirect. --rimshottalk 07:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This category is a sub category of Category:People in contact with water yet there are photos of animals here, this category should be renamed or the parent category should be changed. Mjrmtg (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Supposing for a moment that this is a useful category, I would suggest to split it as follows
- Category:Heads above water (child of Category:Wet things)
- --rimshottalk 21:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep with the modifications proposed by Rimshot. This is a useful category, and the modifications will resolve the current ambiguities admirably. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Created Category:Human heads above water and Category:Animal heads above water. Moved photos to appropriate categories. --Mjrmtg (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, as it was now empty. I think the remaining categories are organized quite well enough to find all relevant images. --rimshottalk 20:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Should be renamed, as airport has been renamed to "Birmingham Airport" (sub category should also be renamed) Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Renamed/redirected. INeverCry 00:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Closed and 
on hold per Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life. FDMS 4 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Closed and on hold per Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life. FDMS 4 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Closed and on hold per Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life. FDMS 4 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Closed and on hold per Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life. FDMS 4 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no English term such as cheese stopper. there is a polish word, Koreczki "cork", which is sort of related to "cheese hedgehogs" or Kaseigel. rename to Koreczki Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm surprised there is this lexical gap in English, I'd be perfectly happy with "cheesecorks" :) This is not a Polish concept AFAIK, it is quite popular in the UK at kids' parties or cheap buffets (probably less popular since the 70s, when people thought cheese and pineapple was a good combination). But you are quite right that there is apparently no English name for these things, despite having spawned the concept of a "cocktail sausage" (tiny sausages meant to be skewered on cocktail sticks like this) –moogsi (blah) 15:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- due to lack of further discussion, i moved them to Category:Käseigel, and redirect this to that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna close this for now, while pointing out that we are missing e.g. Category:Cocktail sticks and Category:Finger foods. NB there is now Category:Toothpick appetizers which is as good a name as any I suppose –moogsi (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This category is essentially a duplicate of Category:National Cycle Network route 5 (which it is in fact a subcategory of). It only had one file in it, File:Cycle track by petemh.jpg, which has been moved to the main NCR5 category. I'd suggest deleting this category. -- Schnee (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I created this category 1/2 year before Category:National Cycle Network route 5 was created. I'm ok with deleting "my" category. The new one has a more handy name. I probably wanted the category to include "UK" because many countries have national cycle networks. Nillerdk (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as empty duplicate. --rimshottalk 19:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
POV title. We cant have "X smiling", "Y crying", "P in red gown with chin on hand and winking towards the audience" as category names. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I created the category because I got many photos of her looking really bored. I understand that this kind of cattegory is unusual, but it is a hidden category. --/abbedabbtalk 08:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support this nomination. Very subjective title, please delete. - FakirNL (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are there any rules for hidden categories? abbedabbdisk 12:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support this nomination. Very subjective title, please delete. - FakirNL (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as superfluous. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Requested speedydeletion: Smiling might be OK, but bored (a feeling!) definitely is not. FDMS 4 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Imho this category makes no sense and should be deleted Oursana (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agree and is very subjective --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- The apostrophe is in the wrong place too. ghouston (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete There is no "womens erotica". every erotic image here could be found erotic by a man, or a woman, depending on their sexual desires. we might as well have categories like "ice cream that dutch businessmen like".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Requested speedydeletion. FDMS 4 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
unnecessary layer for a sparse category tree Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Has potential, and three subcats already. Keep. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept, no obvious error and no progress in years. --rimshottalk 20:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
unnecessary layer of categorization. image can go in other categories, and is not truly a SF related image Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I created this category because category:Multiverse was categorised in category:Cosmology, which is for me related to science and not to science-fiction or fantasy. But as there is only a small amount of media in both categories, I agree to transfere the only picture from Category:Multiverse (science fiction) to category:Multiverse.
- And, yes, the picture is related to SF. It is as neutral as possible to avoid infringement of intellectual property (the author died only a few years ago), but it is related to a ficitonal work.
- Cdang (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Mmmm, after a good night of sleep, I get back to what I wrote: when science and fiction meet, I think it is better to separate them, so one can make the difference between what is considered as a serious hypothesis, and what is just a work of imagination.
- Cdang (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept. Two years later, the category holds 6 media. No answer was given. I suppose we can close this discussion and keep the category.
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Hrušaǔka (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Akademija navuk (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Akademija navuk (Minsk Metro station) long ago. --rimshottalk 06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Barysaŭski trakt (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Barysaŭski trakt (Minsk Metro station) long ago. --rimshottalk 06:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Instytut kuĺtury (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Michalova (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Michalova (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Maskoŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Maskoŭskaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kastryčnickaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Kastryčnickaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Park Čaliuskincaŭ (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Park Čaliuskincaŭ (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Pieramohi (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Plošča Pieramohi (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Jakuba Kolasa (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Plošča Jakuba Kolasa (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Lienina Kolasa (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Plošča Lienina (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Uručča (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Uručča (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Uschod (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Uschod (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Aŭtazavodskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Aŭtazavodskaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Frunzienskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Frunzienskaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kamiennaja Horka (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Kamiennaja Horka (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kuncaŭščyna (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Kuncaŭščyna (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kupalaŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Kupalaŭskaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Mahilioŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Mahilioŭskaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Maladziožnaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Maladziožnaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Niamiha (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Niamiha (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Partyzanskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Partyzanskaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Pieršamajskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Pieršamajskaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Pralietarskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Pralietarskaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Puškinskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Puškinskaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Spartyŭnaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Spartyŭnaja (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Traktarny zavod (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Traktarny zavod (Minsk Metro station). --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Tulips miscellaneous group Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wish you would not use the term "group" for these informal collections of categories. The word "group" is used as a formal name for groups of cultivars, as recommended by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Uleli (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The vernacular name "lilies" should not been used. I agree with Uleli that "group" is not suitable, because it would indeed suggest that this category contains e.g. a group of "Lilium hybrids" or "Lilium cultivars". Why would we, e.g., not rename this category "Lilium miscellaneous" or only "Miscellaneous"?--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wish you would not use the term "group" for these informal collections of categories. The word "group" is used as a formal name for groups of cultivars, as recommended by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Uleli (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't like this category - in my opinion it would be better to create a category named Category:Lilium species and have the categories collected in Category:Lilies miscellaneous group remain/moved back to Category:Lilium. Anna reg (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing discussion: per consensus to delete and per precedent at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Tulips miscellaneous group. All contents have been moved to other Lilium categories. I will request deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
This grab-bag grouping under a "miscellaneous" title is inconsistent with the approach on Commons to categorization and simply renders it more difficult to find the content (there are times when a miscellany category makes sense, but this is not it). I'm guessing that the intent was a good faith intention to clean up the main tulipa category, but grouping subcats that have very little to do with one another in a "misc" category is not a great way to do it. I would have though the better way to do this would be a category along the lines of "Tulipa by species/type/genus..." (whatever the right jargon is), so as to clearly delineate the subcats pertaining to types of tulips from those pertaining to other subjects. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I see that the similar categories have also been created for other types of flowers (e.g. Category:Lilies miscellaneous group). I will tag those as well, and direct people to this discussion so we have more input. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- And Category:Miscellaneous Lilium to make it simpler. Miscellaneous is a wonderful word for categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind that category so much (althought it should be Category:Miscellaneous lilium), although I'd prefer that such images remain in the main category until such time as a subcat is created for that particular species/type/cultivar/etc. (again, I am demonstrating my complete lack of knowledge of flowers by not knowing the right word to use here). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- And Category:Miscellaneous Lilium to make it simpler. Miscellaneous is a wonderful word for categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- It appears to only be two categories - for lilies and tulips. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- And don't forget Category:Tulipa Miscellaneous Group using uppercase to make confusion complete. --Foroa (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nice catch. I hadn't noticed that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- And don't forget Category:Tulipa Miscellaneous Group using uppercase to make confusion complete. --Foroa (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The reasons for my doing:
- We have in commons a very valuable botanical and zoological taxonomic system.
- There are many new non-taxonomic categories for user with other interests (e.g. themes collected in "Tulips miscellaneous group").
- There is the scientific name Tulipa, used for the botanical part.
- There is the no-scientific name "tulips", used for the non-botanical part. Orchi (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wish you would not use the term "group" for these informal collections of categories. The word "group" is used as a formal name for groups of cultivars, as recommended by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Uleli (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Orchi that the vernacular name "tulips" should not been used.
- I agree with Uleli that "group" is not suitable. For me it would suggest that this category contains e.g. a group of "Tulipa hybrids" ot "Tulipa cultivars".
- Why would we, e.g., not rename this category "Tulipa miscellaneous" or only "Miscellaneous"? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest to move Category:Tulips miscellaneous group to Category:Categories related to Tulipa or Category:Categories related to Tulipa taxon: it might be a better name and used in a systematic way for isolation between taxonomy and common names. . --Foroa (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for interest and proposals. I agree with with user:Uleli entirely. Thanks to user:Foroa's proposals.What do you think about a short and universal way: e.g. „Category:Tulipa non-taxon“ or „Category:Lilium no taxon“. Orchi (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with your suggestion. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for interest and proposals. I agree with with user:Uleli entirely. Thanks to user:Foroa's proposals.What do you think about a short and universal way: e.g. „Category:Tulipa non-taxon“ or „Category:Lilium no taxon“. Orchi (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest to move Category:Tulips miscellaneous group to Category:Categories related to Tulipa or Category:Categories related to Tulipa taxon: it might be a better name and used in a systematic way for isolation between taxonomy and common names. . --Foroa (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wish you would not use the term "group" for these informal collections of categories. The word "group" is used as a formal name for groups of cultivars, as recommended by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Uleli (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The reasons for my doing:
I remain surprised how much you Taxonomy/TOL people are really immersed in your Taxon world (to the extent that I called one of the colleagues a taxomaniac). So what you are proposing, "no taxon" is just a statement meaning "all the rest that is not from our Taxonomy world, so stay out, I don't care". I guess that 95 % of the Commons contributors shy away from the complex Taxonomy world with their Latin abracadabra, so they will happily dump their stuff in miscellaneous categories or non taxon categories as this is the easiest passe-partout. So a number of comments on the proposed Category:Categories related to Tulipa taxon :
- It describes exactly what we intent, Tulip non-taxon could mean anything
- By its name, it is a meta category, so no images should be dropped in it, only categories, decreasing maintenance work
- you all try to use the shortest possible name, but this is nor really relevant here as it is only manipulated to structure categories, not images.
Anyway, without clear names and by using category names like miscellaneous, various, other, ... you are just attracting lazy categorisation and subsequent maintenance work. And frankly, I fail to understand why I should not drop any special Lilium image into Category:Miscellaneous Lilium; I guess that a substantial part of the Lilium images would qualify for this category.
We better decide carefully as this type of Taxonomy/common name bridge category will probably propagate very quickly to other taxon. --Foroa (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm concentrating more on the rose categories, but I will repeat here what I already said for Category:Lilies miscellaneous group - in my opinion, it would be better to create a category named Category:Tulipa species and have the categories collected in Category:Tulips miscellaneous group moved back to Category:Tulipa. As the main category for tulips, it should be possible to have different topics concerning this plant in the main category. If one topic takes over (as is happening with the species), you have to create a metacategory for this topic - not for all others, as you did here...
- I also don't think that anybody can easily understand what exactly can be found/should be sorted in miscellaneous group... Anna reg (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Category was deleted on 4 July 2015 by User:INeverCry. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Claude II Audran Louperivois Ψ @ 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as a category redirect. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Redirected by P199 3 January 2014. --Achim (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
This category should be moved to Category:S. Sreesanth which corresponds to the publicly known full name of the person with the initials/surname. Rahul Bott (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in nearly 3 years. Moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Empty category (due to COM:FOP#Belgium). 84.61.160.72 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion: it will come back again and again. And the environment, plaques and de minimis pictures will ultimately arrive. --Foroa (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Could it be usefull to create a Category:subject to COM:FOP#Belgium) and to put redirects towards such a category from this and similar categories? --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea about the category, but no redirects as image will come and go anyway, some will stay in the long run. --Foroa (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the category is also badly misspelled. It should be 'Jeanneke Pis'. Oreo Priest (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Could it be usefull to create a Category:subject to COM:FOP#Belgium) and to put redirects towards such a category from this and similar categories? --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - category with an incorrect name and meant for copyrighted (FoP) images. JurgenNL (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to correct name. The category now contains non-copyrighted pictures related to the sculpture. --Viktoria Kunst (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, per Viktoria. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to correct name, per Viktoria. Oreo Priest (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept, and renamed. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This category should be moved to Category:Vallabhbhai Patel as the latter name is without any honorifics and the subject is equally well known and uniquely identified by the shorter name too. Rahul Bott (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in years. Moving category and its sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Need to re-name it to match the now official name. New name should be Hillsboro Ballpark M.O. Stevens 18:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- See the City's official page on the stadium for verification. M.O. Stevens 18:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Aboutmovies: And now it's Ron Tonkin Field? Should we move it there? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, we should. M.O. Stevens 05:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Aboutmovies: And now it's Ron Tonkin Field? Should we move it there? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Category has been redirected to Category:Hillsboro Ballpark since 2013. I'm updating that redirect to Category:Ron Tonkin Field, the new name of the ballpark. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone usurped all the images that were in this categroy, and placed them in a brand new, narrower, category -- even though about half of them don't fit in the narrower category. They used a bot to perform the usurpation, and the bot failed to leave an open and transparent explanation for the usurpation. The target directory for the usurpation was Category:Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto). I suggest the following images, for instance, either don't show station platforms at all, or primarly show tracks or trainsheds, and so shouldn't have been usurped: 1, 2, 3. Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
--(9).jpg){kind=link}
- Geo, the new category name (Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed) was unfortunately inconsistent with the rest of the category tree and was improperly capitalized. The form of disambiguation was inconsistent with the other Union Station categories, and (except for proper or formal names) the location should always follow the subject (not the other way). Consistency in category naming and categorization is extremely important - when we are inconsistent, we always end up with poorly categorized images and/or duplicate categories. I moved the category name to the same category name we seem to use for every other photo of this sort. Almost all the photos seem to be of the train platforms (which will almost always necessitate also capturing parts of the tracks and the train sheds in the images). You are correct that the three specific images don't seem to fit the train platform category, but then we should create subcats for Category:Rail tracks at Union Station (Toronto) and Category:Train shed at Union Station (Toronto) if there are specific images that someone would use to illustrate either of those subjects. I am not saying that we should not, for example, have a category that allows people to easily find, for example, images of the train shed (quite the opposite actually), but we can't name categories with no regard to how the rest of the category tree is structured and named.
And, by the way, nobody usurped anything. That's not helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Geo, the new category name (Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed) was unfortunately inconsistent with the rest of the category tree and was improperly capitalized. The form of disambiguation was inconsistent with the other Union Station categories, and (except for proper or formal names) the location should always follow the subject (not the other way). Consistency in category naming and categorization is extremely important - when we are inconsistent, we always end up with poorly categorized images and/or duplicate categories. I moved the category name to the same category name we seem to use for every other photo of this sort. Almost all the photos seem to be of the train platforms (which will almost always necessitate also capturing parts of the tracks and the train sheds in the images). You are correct that the three specific images don't seem to fit the train platform category, but then we should create subcats for Category:Rail tracks at Union Station (Toronto) and Category:Train shed at Union Station (Toronto) if there are specific images that someone would use to illustrate either of those subjects. I am not saying that we should not, for example, have a category that allows people to easily find, for example, images of the train shed (quite the opposite actually), but we can't name categories with no regard to how the rest of the category tree is structured and named.
- Short answer -- I considered starting separate categories for tracks and for trainshed. I have no objection to moving Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed to one of Category:Rail tracks at Union Station (Toronto) or Category:Train shed at Union Station (Toronto), and to creating the other one. Geo Swan (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Longer answer I agree that consistency is important, in general. Unfortunately, in my experience, we are inconsistent about valuing consistency. See Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Boatlifts in Henrichenburg, Germany for an example of inconsistency.
- Anyhow I suggest Category:Train station platforms in Canada is not a good example of consistency. We have multiple super categories for train stations in Canada -- maybe too many. We have hundreds of images of train stations in Canada. Well over half of those image include the train station platform. If Category:Train station platforms in Canada was really a valuable category most of those images would already have been included in it. But they weren't.
- Category:Train station platforms in Canada contained just over a dozen images, all but two of which were instances of GO Train stations -- that were already included in Category:GO Train Stations. Check those GO stations and you will find they contain other basically similar images that were not included in Category:Train station platforms in Canada. Of the other two, one was an image of an Edmonton LRT station platform -- not all that different from 20 other images of Edmonton LRT station platforms that were not included. Anyhow, on the grounds that I think "train stations" iplies heavy rail, not light rail, I removed it. The other image was a VIA station, already inlcuded in a super category for VIA stations.
- WRT train sheds -- they are rare -- at least in North America. Toronto's Union Station has one. Are there any others in Ontario? In Canada? So train sheds are far more noteworthy than train station platforms.
- Organizations that run databases should have a single person who is responsible for consistently managing the databases schema. Commons lacks this. So it is at a constant risk of a kind of schema creep. This risk is multiplied by the fact that when most categories are started the person starting them doesn't bother explicitly stating wha should and shouldn't be included. (I am guilty of this as well.)
- An anecdote to illustrate my point. I was a member of a small food coop, some decades ago -- in pre-PC days actually. The food coop's inventory was maintained on a rolodex of 3x5 cards. When I first had to pay attention to that rolodex it had a section labelled "cereals" that listed our past purchases of wheat, barley, millet, oats. At some point someone strted a card for oatmeal, and included it in this section. Well, I went away for a while, and when I returned, that coop had started to expensive, organic, crunchy granola, muesli (a kind of uncooked crunchy granola), and even organic, processed corn-flake like boxes. I found they had taken over the "cereals" section -- and a brand new section had been created for "grains and nutes". I see that kind of category creep here all the time.
- We currently have:
- Categories suck. They had no history of when an element was added, and when it was removed. Administrators routinely delete empty categories -- even though they have way of knowing if the category had always been empty, whether it was emptied by a cluelss newbie or vandal, or was deleted by a knowledgable insider. I think we need a better replacement for categories as an organizing tool. Geo Swan (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- WRT usurpation. You wrote: "And, by the way, nobody usurped anything. That's not helpful.". Over on the wikipedia I have an essay w:User:Geo Swan/on apologies. Are you telling me you think I should apologize fr using the term usurpation? In that essay I suggest practically everyone sucks at apologies. I say I will apologize, but if I don't already recognize what merits an apology I need the person who wants one to spell out why, first, and I have to be convinced one is in order.
- Way back in 2005 commons allowed images with non-commercial licenses. I'd uploaded only a few images, maybe one hundred images. But they included a dozen or or two dozen images of Canadian Coast Guard and Canadian Navy vessels that were uploaded using the then perfectly valid non-commercial licenses. In March of 2005 it was announced that new images with non-commercial licenses could no longer be uploaded. And all the legacy images with non-commercial licenses would soon be deleted.
- It was a huge disappointment for me. I decided I would spend the next weekend searching for replacement images that were in the public domain. I decided I could search for instances where a USN or USCG individual was assigned to a Canadian ship, or was on a joint mission with US vessels, or visited a Canadian port. Those images were in the public domain.
- I wasn't as experience at searching for images, and there were probably a lot few images to find. I spent 14 hours looking for public domain replacements.
- So I was realy cross when I noticed someone had come along and removed the valid lisense tag on my new, legitimate public domain images, replacing it with a speedy tag saying the image should be deleted because it lacked a porper license. I looked at the confitribution history of the is guy, and he had done this to something like 100 Canadian images.
- I asked this quality contrl volunteer why they removed my valid licenses. He said something like: "I know some Canadian people reacted to the change in licensing by putting bogus valid licenses on images that are copyvios, so I went through all those images and removed the bogus licences. I reminded him of (1) his obligation to use meaningful edit summaries; and (2) the recommendation he leave a heads-up on the talk page of contributors when he nominated their images for deletion.
- His response was classic, and it is one I have encountered over and over again, in one form or another since then. His response (paraphrasing from memory):
- I could take the steps you recommend, but the time required to do so would erode the efficiency of my quality control efforts.
- Well, he may have regarded his quality control efforts as "efficient", but he also had made a lot of mistakes.
- It should have taken him less than 30 seconds to check the source pages of the images I uploaded. It should have taken him less than 30 seconds to leave a heads-up on my talk page. The replacement public domain images I found took almost an hour each to find, so his unwillingness to spend that 30 second was highly annoying. He had also removed the valid licenses from some images uploaded by User:CambridgeBayWeather -- claiming they were too professional looking to be the work of an amateur, and they were from a remote location, unlikely to be the home of one of the project's volunteers. Well CambridgeBayWeather does live in Cambridge Bay, so his images too were false positives.
- After spending a considerable effort to comply with the (new) policy in my search for those policy compliant replacement images I decided it was absolutely essential that our projects' quality control volunteers -- those who enforce our policies -- should follow our policies to the letter.
- What I think this principle means, with regard to Siebot, is that if it doesn't leave meaningful edit summaries it should not be used.
- If there is a meaningful explanation, based on a policy based, or a guideline, or a long established central discussion, that is another matter. Good faith contributors make mistakes. I think they should feel entitled to have others who think they made a mistake, to provide some kind of clue as to what they see as a mistake -- even if it only a link in an edit summary.
- I don't think I was at fault starting Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed. I had never heard of COM:CDC until you mentioned it. I am not a newbie. I have uploaded close to 10,000 images since 2005. There have been dozens of categories I thought were valid that were deleted due to being empty after someone took all their contents and placed them in some other category, without meaningful explanation.
- I tried to figure out how I could figure out who was responsible for emptying the category of the contents I put in it, so I could aske them why they did this. I figured I would have to find the source code for siebot, see if I could read the language it was written in, to see where it said the bot should read the list of actions it should take. I didn't think I could count on finding the source online. I didn't think I could count on being able to understand the source code and figure out where the list of actions was kept. I didn't think I could count on the list of actions being easy to decode, or even that it would be on a server I had access to.
- Let me repeat my key points:
- I think it is absolutely essential that our projects' quality control volunteers -- those who enforce our policies -- should follow our policies to the letter.
- I think Category:Train station platforms in Canada and Category:Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto) are not a good example of consistency. Category:Train station platforms in Canada is a category that should be deleted as it is (1) barely used; (2) overlaps better, more useful categories.
- If Toronto's Union Station has the only trainshed in Canada, or if there are only a very few trainsheds in Canada then there is no consistency problem with having a category for Union Station's trainshed.
- As per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Boatlifts in Henrichenburg, Germany I have never been able to count on consistency.
- Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Whoa! :) That's quite the response. To keep this discussion from spiraling into a lengthy novel, I'll respond in brief bullet points. Just because my responses are brief and to the point, it does not mean that I am being dismissive of your comments or intentionally being curt.
- I have no problem with you putting all the images in question in Category:Rail tracks at Union Station (Toronto) or Category:Train shed at Union Station (Toronto), as appropriate and Category:Train station platforms in Canada could be deleted for all I care. I am not fussed whether we have a category for train platforms or not. All I care about here is that the categories we have are correctly named.
- I do believe train sheds are less common in North America (so is train travel). But historically they did exist in greater number in Canada - off the top of my head, the train sheds in Ottawa were demolished to make way for Rideau Canal beautification, and the Halifax station used to have a lovely one. Perhaps I have not expressed myself well, but I have no issue with a category for Union Station's trainshed. I encourage it. I have a problem with a "grab bag" category name like Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed because it presents so many problems.
- Commons is a work in progress. To borrow an en.wp expression, there will always be OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments to be made. Problems elsewhere are never an excuse to throw naming conventions out the window.
- As per COM:CAT, categories should be assessed on the basis of their scope, not what happens to be in them at any given moment. The fact that there are other images that are not as well categorized as they should be is not a good reason to establish inconsistent category naming.
- Category:Heritage Railway Stations of Canada, Category:Demolished train stations in Canada, Category:Former train stations in Canada are each a distinctive category. There is no overlap. The first refers to a specific federal heritage designation (thus the caps). The second refers to stations that are no more. The third refers to stations that have been repurposed for new uses. (BTW, there is a discussion going on the moment whereby "Former [type of building]" categories would be renamed "Repurposed [type of building]" since former can so often be understood to mean destroyed. The discussion has stalled on the meaning of the meaning of the word "demolished"). Arguably, some hatnotes would be of value here though.
- Categories *do* suck, but until the Mediawiki software is significantly updated to allow for tags, that's what we are stuck with.
- I didn't say you should apologize for using the word "usurped". I said it was inaccurate. Nobody usurped anything. But you certainly have no reason to apologize.
- We are all quality control volunteers on Commons.
- I'm sorry you had that problem way back when with a person who clearly appears to have been a complete asshole. It is both a blessing and a curse that collaborative projects such as this attract all types.
- We should all be following our policies and guidelines and practices. But there is often not going to be agreement about what it means to have followed a policy to the letter in any given circumstances. And there is so much clean-up being undertaken at any given point here on Commons, that is not to be unexpected that people are going to be doing what they think is routine clean-up that turns out to raise concerns. The more helpful approach is to assume good faith and engage in discussion (and then raise bloody hell if the other person/people fail to treat you with respect). And following things to the letter works both ways. Category naming consistency is very important, negative past experiences and random examples of bad categorization notwithstanding.
- I don't find your criticism of Category:Train station platforms in Canada all that convincing. But to me, the more important issue is working within the existing category naming scheme. If the scheme sucks, work to change it (and/or just avaoid the problematic subcategories). This particular issue (platforms, train sheds, etc.) strikes me as one that might be requiring some consideration and discussion at a more general level. I used to be completely frustrated by the monuments and memorials categories - I was just trying to sort out the images on a Toronto (and to a lesser extent, Canada) basis, but jesus fucking christ the categories were a mess. I got involved in a discussion related to the top categories Category:Memorials and Category:Monuments, both longstanding categories, and it quickly became apparent that notwithstanding that there were 1000s of monument and memorial subcategories on the Commons, there was no clear consensus on what constituted a monument versus a memorial and which one (if either) was a subcategory of the other. Things were changed, and it now makes sense.
- I went on way longer than intended. Sorry. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time for a detailed reply. It seems we are in complete agreement.
- Thanks for the information about other Canadian train sheds. I went looking in for some among our existing pictures, thinking maybe Winnipeg or Thunder Bay might have had one. Some of those European train sheds were beautiful, and even the ugly ones are interesting.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I admit that I haven't read the whole discussion, but it looks like there's a consensus and no objections. Is there anything left to do here? --rimshottalk 18:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This category and most of its children (all but the ones specifically for Japan) should be renamed to Category:Cherry blossoms. The reason being, sakura is a Japanese term for cherry blossoms. The category description states: "This is a category for the Spring blossoming Japanese cherry trees, called sakura". Well, they are called sakura, but mostly by Japanese. On English Wikipedia, sakura redirects to w:Cherry blossom, and that article even clearly states in the lead: "A cherry blossom is the flower of any of several trees of genus Prunus, particularly the Japanese Cherry, Prunus serrulata, which is sometimes called sakura after the Japanese (桜 or 櫻; さくら)". The use of sakura is incorrect, and - with all due respect for the Japanese culture, which I am quite fond of myself - can be even somewhat offensive (I am about to create Category:Cherry blossoms in Korea, and I am pretty sure that should not be called "Sakura in Korea"... anyway, w:Cherry_blossom#South_Korea needs expansion, but that's OT here.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Merge with Category:Cherry Blossom and rename that to Category:Cherry blossom –moogsi (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Moogsi, but I think first a naming strategy for Trees in flower should be decided (at the moment there are at least 4 plausible strategies: Genus in flower, Genus blossom, Genus (flowers) and Genus flowers). Category:Cherry Blossom should then be renamed according to that decision. Anna reg (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- support, its seems there is also confusion about whether Sakura refers to cherry blossom festivals as well. if that is true, then those files and categories should be called Category:Cherry Blossom Festival (plural?), not Category:Sakura. or Category:Hanami. (hm, this is a hot mess)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Cherry blossom festivals are a separate things from the more general pictures of cherry blossoms. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Qualified support - by all means move, but to Category:Prunus flowers, not "blossom"; the latter is a poetic / literary, not botanical term, so not too appropriate in the context here. - MPF (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Cherry blossoms has been created in the meantime. Besides that, there are also Category:Prunus serrulata in flower, Category:Prunus sect. Cerasus in flower and Category:Prunus sect. Cerasus blossom. --ghouston (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose the following actions:
- Move Category:Malus blossom to Category:Malus in flower
Done
- Redirect Category:Apple blossom to Category:Malus in flower Done
- Move Category:Malus domestica blossom to Category:Malus domestica in flower Done
- Move sub-categories accordingly Done
- Move sub-categories accordingly
- Redirect Category:Apple blossom to Category:Malus in flower
- Move Category:Jacarandas in blossom in Largo do Carmo to Category:Jacarandas in flower in Largo do Carmo Done
- Move Category:Prunus blossom to Category:Prunus in flower Done
- Redirect Category:Cherry blossoms to Category:Prunus in flower Done
- Redirect Category:Cherry blossoms to Category:Prunus in flower
- Move Category:Prunus dulcis blossom to Category:Prunus dulcis in flower Done
- Move Category:Prunus persica blossom to Category:Prunus persica in flower Done
- Create Category:Prunus in flower by country Done
- Move Category:Prunus blossom in France to Category:Prunus in flower in France (+ add to above category) Done
- Move Category:Cherry blossoms in California to Category:Prunus in flower in California (+ add to above category) Done
- Move Category:Cherry blossoms in China to Category:Prunus in flower in China (+ add to above category) Done
- Move Category:Cherry blossoms in Korea to Category:Prunus in flower in Korea (+ add to above category) Done
- Move Category:Cherry blossoms in Taiwan to Category:Prunus in flower in Taiwan (+ add to above category) Done
- Move Category:Cherry blossoms in Washington, D.C. to Category:Prunus in flower in Washington, D.C. (+ add to above category) Done
- Create Category:Prunus in flower in Germany (+ add to above category) Done
- Create Category:Prunus in flower in Japan (+ add to above category) Done
- Create Category:Prunus in flower in Belgium (+ add to above category) Done
- Move Category:Prunus blossom in France to Category:Prunus in flower in France (+ add to above category)
- Redirect Category:Plum tree blossom to Category:Prunus domestica in flower Done
- Move Category:Plum tree blossom in China to Category:Prunus domestica in flower in China (+add to Category:Prunus in flower in China) Done
- Move Category:Prunus serrulata blossom in France to Category:Prunus serrulata in flower in France (+ add to Category:Prunus in flower in France) Done
- Move Category:Prunus serrulata blossom in Germany to Category:Prunus serrulata in flower in Germany (+ add to Category:Prunus in flower in Germay) Done
- Move Category:Sakura to Category:Prunus in flower Done
- Move Category:Sakura by country to Category:Prunus in flower by country Done
- Move all subcategories to Category:Prunus in flower in X Done
- Move all subcategories to Category:Prunus in flower in X
- Delete Category:Species of sakura
- Move Sakura in art to Category:Cherry blossoms in Japan in art (in Category:Cherry blossoms in art and Category:Prunus in flower in Japan
More are surely necessary though. Piotrus, Moogsi, Anna reg, Mercurywoodrose, MPF: Your thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've done a bunch of this. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Moved as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Category is quite hard to find. Template:Occupation/list suggests "plasterer", why not rename the category to "plasteres" as well? --Flominator (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that plasterer is a tradesman making general plasterwork, not sure we can mix it up with "artistic" plasterwork. --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Like Foroa says, it's like the old "What do you do?" "I'm a painter" "Pictures or houses?". Except in this case, "plasterer" only means a tradesperson who will come to your house and plaster a wall, not an artist –moogsi (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Should we then maybe change Template:Occupation/list? --Flominator (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Changed Template:Occupation/en [2] --Flominator (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- This will do, though "Stuccoists" is an alternative. Not plasterers. Johnbod (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
@Johnbod and Flominator: Has this been resolved? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to be. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Closing as resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the name of this category be Ships' propellers? Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on whether you think the word ship is being used attributively or not. I think it is; "ship propellers" sounds fine to me –moogsi (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- As I noted in Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/11/Category:Ship's bells -- still unclosed, although I initiated it 40 months ago -- I am not an English major. In that discussion I quoted Strunk and White's, Elements of Style.
- Frankly I don't understand w:Noun adjunct, but I note it says:
- Noun adjuncts were traditionally mostly singular (e.g. "trouser press") except when there were lexical restrictions (e.g. "arms race"), but there is a recent trend towards more use of plural ones, especially in UK English. Many of these can also be and/or were originally interpreted and spelled as plural possessives (e.g. "chemicals' agency", "writers' conference", "Rangers' hockey game"), but they are now often written without the apostrophe, although this is criticised by some authorities.
- I think the consensus at Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/11/Category:Ship's bells was for "ships'", and I would encourage the closing admin to close that discussion as well.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I should have read that article before linking it. The section you quote isn't referenced (at least, the reference given doesn't say anything to that effect). Sorry about that. All I mean is, imagine the word "ship" is being used as an adjective. For instance, there is no adjective in English meaning "of or relating to a ship or ships" (except maybe "nautical", but that is a little broader referring to seafaring in general). It's like "ship diagrams" or "shipyards" - you aren't talking about a specific ship or number of ships, you are using the noun "ship" as an attribute of the other noun. Some more examples of noun adjuncts would be:
- Ships' propellers does sound OK in this instance - it sounds like a more likely possessive phrase on its own (more than "apples' cores", for example). But I favour Category:Ship propellers, because using "ship" attributively means you are definitely talking about no ship in particular (or all ships everywhere ever, depending on how you analyze it), whereas using "ships'" possessively suggests you might be talking about a specific group of ships, e.g. "the fleet moved forward by the ships' propellers" is fine, you're talking about those ships in the fleet. So "ships' propellers" for me leaves open the question "which ships?", because you would only need to say "ships'" if you wanted to specify a group. Of course, we do obviously mean "all ships ever" in naming the category, but it still sounds more awkward and imprecise to me. Neither of them is "wrong" in itself –moogsi (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ships' propellers for consistency with Category:Ships' bells and Category:Ships' propellers by ship. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Recommend deleting category. Basically, almost all modern libraries, certainly all national and academic libraries, are hybrid libraries. A standard modern non-private library has many books and periodicals as well as access to many databases, ebooks, ejournals and other formats of information such as DVD's, CD's and maps. DGtal (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- In France we have special buildings that are called médiathèques (en:Multimedia library). They contain books and DVD, and sometimes are important buildings in towns or villages, with a social aim. It would be better to find another name for this category, why not Category:Multimedia libraries ? Jack ma (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jack, this is in contrast to what? At least in the U.S., it would be hard to find a public or academic library that didn't meet this definition. Is it different in France? Are there still a large number of libraries there that have only books and print periodicals? - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think the difference Jack described is quantitive rather that qualitative. Virtually all modern libraries have multimedia, the question is what % of the ollections is print and ebook/ejournal and what percent is movies, music, games etc. In Israel we have a médiathèque in Holon that also is a youth theater and cinemathèque, but this is much more culturally diverse than most médiathèques in the world. DGtal (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Jack, this is in contrast to what? At least in the U.S., it would be hard to find a public or academic library that didn't meet this definition. Is it different in France? Are there still a large number of libraries there that have only books and print periodicals? - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that most modern libraries in the western world also include multimedia content, but if it has a special meaning in France (and Israel?) why not use the word they use? I propose a move to Category:Médiathèques. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- In Israel it's just fancy branding, I don't know French language and culture to really answer the question about France. DGtal (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Jack ma: What do you think about a move to Category:Médiathèques ? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree if "Médiathèques" is internationally recognized, that I doubt (except in Israel, Japan and France (?)), and Commons naming convention prefers names in English. You are right when you say that now all modern libraries are multimedia libraries (in France, we used to do the difference 10 years ago, but now they are in the same buildings, in Paris as well that in the small villages), but the fact en:Multimedia library does exist (and not en:Médiathèque nor en:Mediatheque) keep me thinking that Category:Multimedia libraries should exist and be a sub-category of Category:Libraries. So, excuse me but both ideas are correct for me (renaming Category:Hybrid librairies to Category:Multimedia librairies, or merge it into Category:Librairies). Jack ma (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- en:Multimedia library may exist, but it's a stub with one (now dead) link as reference. - I think it makes more sense to just upmerge to Category:Libraries. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
No clearly distinct definition apart from modern concept of the parent category (even per fr:Médiathèque it seems more like a branding label now). Upmerged to Category:Libraries. DMacks (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it a good category?, for plans like some from Category:Electrical_installations and thelike like File:Single-phase for 2-room apartments.JPG and File:Ex-wiring-plan.svg Also add to Specific diagram types. See also Category talk:Architectural wiring diagrams Sunspeanzler (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Sunspeanzler: 5 years later, the only image in the category is File:Architectural wiring diagram minihome.svg (which you placed there). No one has objected to this category in 5 years, but as far as I can see, no one else has used it either. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The nominator did not edit since 2014, I am closing this as no consensus to delete--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
For Discussion - I don't believe any named men should be under this category, only photos. For example Category:Jan Peter Balkenende, in the category are photos, signatures and audio clips. In the photos he has glasses, his signature has nothing to do with him and glasses, nor does an audio clip. What do others feel about subcategories being under this category? or, just the photos? Mjrmtg (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, and anyway, people don't always wear them all their life or all the time. --Foroa (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Someone User:Pigsonthewing isn't happy with the decision to only categorize photos with Category:Men with glasses, he keeps reverting when I try to add Category:Men with glasses of photos of him with glasses, like File:Wiki Academy Kosovo 2013 Award ceremony 04.jpg, File:QSMM GLAM 3177.JPG, File:Herbert Backstage Pass cmglee 65.jpg. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's not how categories work - and there's no need to flood watchlists. Andy Mabbett (me) *is* a "man with glasses". Not to mention that you're adding individual images of me - unusually - not wearing my glasses; and audio clips, to the category. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the photos of you and the audio clips from the category. I mass added everything tried to remove the ones without glasses. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- No; you didn't. You removed some of them. Your edits are being disruptive. Stop it (but revert as requested on your talk page). Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, as I said, I missed removing Category:Men with glasses from some of your photos that do not have glasses in them. Your adding Category:Men with glasses to Category:Andy Mabbett is being disruptive. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- No; you didn't. You removed some of them. Your edits are being disruptive. Stop it (but revert as requested on your talk page). Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the photos of you and the audio clips from the category. I mass added everything tried to remove the ones without glasses. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like there are two different concepts about the logic of categories. While some categories are thought to describe constants (i.e. attributes which won't change, like place of birth) other categories are thought to describe variables (i.e. attributes which can change, like men with glasses). Although I'd appreciate a more consistent approach on categorisation, current implementation shows that this is not the case at all. If you look at categories with Category:Politicians with moustaches you'll most likely find pictures which don't show politicians with moustaches. I think the current approach tries to represent characteristics rather than what you actually see on an image. Still this might be a valid reason to establish a set of categories identifying what you actually see (e.g. Images of people wearing glasses). Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Commons is a media server, and obviously, as can be seen in the subcategories, this category is reserved for portrait photos of men wearing glasses. Indeed, in Category:Men with sunglasses, the concept seems understood. Three quarters of the male population are wearing glasses from time to time, so categories of the people that wear glasses (from time to time) don't help for people that search for pictures of people wearing glasses. If people don't understand this simple concept, we'll have to rename the category indeed. --Foroa (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't wear glasses "from time to time". Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Come on, there are only 60 % of the images in Category:Andy Mabbett and virtually none of the 1100 images its subcategories that are relevant for this category. --Foroa (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't wear glasses "from time to time". Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Thoughts for a compromise creation of Category:Andy Mabbett with glasses populated only with images in which he is wearing glasses that is a subcategory of Category:Andy Mabbett and Category:Men with glasses.--KTo288 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please propose this, first, as a general policy for Commons categories. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
In this category, "with" means that a man actually is with the glasses in the specific visual work, not that he merely owns glasses or occasionally wears them. If a man is always seen with glasses in all visual media, then maybe that man's name category should be in Category:Men with glasses for efficiency. But, if it's likely that there will be at least some publicly-accessable media of the man without glasses, then the two categories should be applied to each photo separately. If one searches all media in Category:Men with glasses and all of its subcategories, there should be no image of a man without glasses also in the image. An example of where the line is, in my opinion: Until 10 minutes ago, I would have said that Category:Harry Caray should be in Category:Men with glasses. Harry Caray was a sports announcer in the U.S., and eyeglasses were a prominent part of his identity. (You can do a Google Image Search for "Harry Caray" and you'll see.) I assumed that he had worn eyeglasses since an early age, and that I would never see a picture without them. But I did the image search and actually found one legitimate image of him without glasses: Here's Haray Caray without glasses, presumably in the 1940s at 1340 WCLS (now WJOL) in Joliet, Illinois. Whether he was required to take his glasses off for a professional photo at the time, or he just took them off normally at the time, I don't know. But, because of this photo, Category:Harry Caray shouldn't be in Category:Men with glasses, since there is at least one example of how Harry Caray might end up with a legitimate image without glasses on Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think your assertions have no substance. Also, I don't wear glasses "occasionally". Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about you specifically (or at all, to be honest); I was talking about what people expect to see when they encounter "with" on Commons. "Men and glasses" would be a awkward. "Men wearing glasses" would make sense, but then you end up with people being pedantic about people holding glasses in their hands instead of on their head for a moment. (No need to inform me whether a specific person holds glasses in his or her hands "for a moment".) I do understand that it gets complicated when we're dealing with a category that has subcategories whose direct subjects are not the parent category's direct subject. Category:Theodore Roosevelt is a subcategory of Category:Politicians with moustaches, and Category:Theodore Roosevelt's taxidermy is a subcategory of Category:Theodore Roosevelt, yet the things in Category:Theodore Roosevelt's taxidermy do not have moustaches. (I think that could be solved with a couple of technical changes or tags, but it would get hairy and take a lot of time.) --Closeapple (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Proposal: Since there is already Category:Males with glasses in the 20th century, then that category should first contain the decades of the 20th century, and then the years, and then by month or even by day. Images from Category:Men with glasses should then be transferred over there, because that category is already too large. -Mardus (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have any real suggestions to solve the problem, but I'd like to add that Category:Men with beards has the same problem. If any great solution is found, it should be applied there as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- What about renaming to Category:Images of men with glasses or Category:Photographs of men with glasses? It's awkward, but it would be clear. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that categories of named men don't belong here (unless there are categories like "Adam Smith with glasses"). "Images of" or "Photographs of" would need to contain only subcategories, no files, as be subcategorized by characteristic. As far as the with/wearing question, I think "wearing" is clearer. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but it's not exactly an accurate representation of what we currently have. There are plenty of similar categories. Category:Photographs of men with books and Category:Photographs of standing men have both existed since 2012, and both of which contain a great number of individual files. But as I said elsewhere, I'm not determined to keep Category:Photographs of men with glasses if it's not helpful. It might, however, be worth sub-categorizing the 4000+ photographs it contains rather than dumping them all back into Category:Men with glasses but I can't think of how best to do it. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just think this fits more into the Category:People wearing objects than Category:People with objects. Using "with" is accurate but imprecise. Do we even have any images of people with glasses who aren't wearing them?
- Besides all that, should we rename these categories to "eyeglasses" to distinguish from drinking glasses and other things called glasses? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Good point, Auntof6. A move to Category:Men wearing glasses (as opposed to "Men who wore glasses") could also eliminate the individual categories, no? If we do so, I don't think there's a need for "eyeglasses". Drinking glasses as already separated out at Category:People with drinking glasses and the "wearing" makes it clear we're not talking about drinking glasses anyway. Though, as Closeapple pointed out above, what do we do with images of men holding eyeglasses (if we have any) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but it's not exactly an accurate representation of what we currently have. There are plenty of similar categories. Category:Photographs of men with books and Category:Photographs of standing men have both existed since 2012, and both of which contain a great number of individual files. But as I said elsewhere, I'm not determined to keep Category:Photographs of men with glasses if it's not helpful. It might, however, be worth sub-categorizing the 4000+ photographs it contains rather than dumping them all back into Category:Men with glasses but I can't think of how best to do it. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Question: Where should we put a picture like that of Andrés del Castillo, in this cat? --E4024 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- We might create Category:Men holding glasses as well. I would argue the picture you link above is not a picture of a man any more than this is a picture of New York City. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking, we could also sub-divide by century, or even decade. Then it could join with the fashion categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I strongly dislike the creation of intersection categories for things that are unrelated to each other. We'll end up with stuff like "21st century black and white photographs of adolescent men holding round glasses in Italy by name" – which might be useful if that's what you are actually looking for but very problematic if you want some other kind of intersection. I think with StructuredData finally picking up speed, we should move towards a flatter category structure in favour of easier on-the-fly intersections. --El Grafo (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking, we could also sub-divide by century, or even decade. Then it could join with the fashion categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: You think "Men with glasses" is too narrow a focus? I tend to agree with your argument, but this doesn't seem to be a good example. There are 87 sub-categories here and, if you include all the images in Category:Photographs of men with glasses, thousands of images in a relatively flat category. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Clearly there are enough images here to warrant this category's existence. However, it should only contain media which depicts men actively with glasses in the image. Categories for people who may be glasses-wearers like myself should not be included, even if the person is rarely found without glasses, because there is no limit that images in that category would include the person with their glasses. The category is not "men who usually wear glasses", but "men with glasses" which tells the user to expect each image to contain both a man and a pair a glasses in it. As for sub-cats that may be warranted, that is a natural outgrowth of the media that is found in this category, and I have no doubt there will be enough to warrant at least some categorization. We should remove the person categories and only categorize media here which contain both a man and a pair of glasses together in the image or video. Josh (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with what Joshbaumgartner said. Person categories should be uncategorized. A distinction may be made between "Category:Men with glasses" (men and glasses in the same picture) and the subcat "Category:Men wearing glasses) (men "actively" wearing glasses on their eyes). Feel free to categorize the person categories by the sight problem these people would be suffering instead (Category:Men with sight problems), or the lack of it (Category:Men who sometimes use glasses, without really needing them to see better) (better don't, obviously). Strakhov (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Strakhov: The same applies to Category:Men with beards ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: IMHO yes, except maybe the distinction between "with beards" and "wearing beards" (?). If too much populated, the content may be categorised by century or similar (easy and lazy) or, much more meaningful (but harder), beard style. Strakhov (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Strakhov: The same applies to Category:Men with beards ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Remove people by name categories: Upon assessing six years of discussion, I have concluded that there is an overwhelming amount of support to remove all categories of people by name from this tree structure. Ultimately, the participants of this discussion found that Category:Men with glasses, as well as other similar categories, should ultimately describe the contents of the media it categorizes and should not be utilized in people by name categories to describe physical characteristics of a particular individual that are not static and are subject to change. This conclusion does not forbid categorizing regular wearers of glasses, but it does not support using these types of categories to do so. The community should discuss how to implement such category for people by name categories because this specific category is not it. ℯxplicit 07:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Wayside shrines, Category:Oratories, Category:Wayside chapels, Category:Christian aediculae are overlapping categories, but the denominations are not univoque. And Category:Devotion in Italy by city seems to concern mainly Category:Christian aediculae. I think the category-tree needs improvement. Suggestions for improvements? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Havang(nl): Delete Category:Christian aediculae as unnecessary and unclear overlap with Category:Christian shrines. Leave Category:Aediculae for things in Ancient Rome. An oratory is a room in a church or a chapel. I don't see how it's connected at all. Category:Calvaries seems somewhat ambiguous to me - it's a public sculpture of the crucifix, thay may be in Category:Wayside crosses or not.
- Otherwise, I propose the following tree:
- Category:Wayside shrines (shrines of all kinds, so long as they are by a road somewhere)
- Sounds good? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, many pictures in Category:Oratories are in fact wayside shrines, others are wayside chapels. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Further proposal
- Category:Wayside shrines (shrines of all kinds, so long as they are by a road or path somewhere)
-- Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs) 2018-05-28 (UTC)
We should find a definition of shrine that conforms to the Christian religion as well as the Buddhist religion, thus a wayside shrine should be independent from religion in its definition. I'm not sure whether a wayside shrine necessarily is a religious building. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Do you mean, there are some Column shrines which are not wayside? Category name should be as brief as possible, all redundant adjectives are unwanted.
- @Themightyquill: "Niche chapel" is a literal translation of the Central-European term (e.g. "výklenková kaple" in Czech). However, Google search and history of the former "Niche chapel" category indicate that in the rest of the world, the collocation evokes rather some niches in walls or in house gables. According the Wayside shrine article, chapel-shrine is the right term for that what is called "výklenková kaple" (niche chapel) as separate structure which is considered as a special type of chapel in my country. --ŠJů (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: a) Good question. I wasn't necessarily arguing that, but there are surely shrines in this world that are made of columns yet aren't "column shrines" in the sense used here, so some disambiguation might be useful. I don't think the term "Column shrine" is common in English, since these shrines aren't common in English speaking countries. Moreover, is everything in sub-category Category:Shaft crosses wayside?
- b) Thanks for the explanation. Your suggestion, then, is to merge Category:Heiligenhäuschen into Category:Chapel-shrines as a generic English term? And should Category:Chapel-shrines remain a sub-category of Category:Category:Niche chapels ? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Generally, there is a common problem with translation of Central-European architectural terms to English. If you want to seek correct terms, you need reflect not a common English used by uneducated and unknowing people but rather expert English used in texts specialized to Central-European art and architecture. For now, these category names (as chapel-shrine and column shrine) are borrowed from the English-Wikipedia article. Wikimedia Commons should be reserved in terminological creativity. At first, the corresponding English-Wikipedia articles should be improved, using relevant sources.
- Heiligenhäuschen is a term similar to chapel-shrines, but IMHO a bit narrower (the chapel-shrine can contain something else than just a statue of a saint - e.g. a cross, a painting etc.). Beside it, the term Heiligenhäuschen can cover also small room chapels, not only niche structures. However, there are many mixed and boundary types of such structures, there is no exact distinction between an open room and a deep niche.
- As regards "column shrines", we need a term for structures named "cs:boží muka" in Czech. The shape of the column should symbolize a column where Jesus was whipped, in this form and interpretation. The top of the column (a "lantern" with reliefs, a summit cross etc.) is variable. "Shaft crosses" clearly don't full under the term "boží muka", but can fall under the generic term "column shrine". The German term Bildstock labels similar subjects, but the term emphasizes the Bild (painting, image) on the top. The terminological distinctions can influence especially classification of atypical or boundary-character subjects. --ŠJů (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Stale: Feel free to be BOLD here and just do what seems best, as there appears to be little interest in this discussion, and thus any change is unlikely to be controversial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)