Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/11
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive November 2016
To be deleted - replaced by "Community centres in Denmark" Beethoven9 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
No need of separate category for single file. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 14:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep: A man about whom there are articles on 30+ wiki projects is notable. No need for deletion. --Achim (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Right, but the discussion isn't about if the person is notable or not, the discussion is if a seperate category is appropriate for a single file in this specific case. Are you meaning to say that the individual is notable enough so that one file is enough for the category to exist? I know theres not a policy on this and I can't remember what precedence has been set. ~riley (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Riley, you're right, we could delete it. But in my experience, if a cat of a person who is in fact notable holds one image only it rarely will continue being a single-file cat. Just like this one. ;) --Achim (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Right, but the discussion isn't about if the person is notable or not, the discussion is if a seperate category is appropriate for a single file in this specific case. Are you meaning to say that the individual is notable enough so that one file is enough for the category to exist? I know theres not a policy on this and I can't remember what precedence has been set. ~riley (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept: Contains 2 images now. --Achim (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This category and its purpose is not clear. Motacilla (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. FDMS 4 22:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
do we need to create categories that are empty, even if we think it likely they will be populated? cant we wait for a single image instead? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- You nominated a category one hour after it was created. Could've been easily resolved just by leaving a message, to which I would reply "yes, I created them then went to prepare some images for upload". — Rhododendrites talk | 05:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: category is now populated. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
as with parent cat, dont we need at least one image? its a notable subject, but we are not a catalog of interesting topics, we are a media catalog. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- You nominated a category one hour after it was created. Could've been easily resolved just by leaving a message, to which I would reply "yes, I created them then went to prepare some images for upload". — Rhododendrites talk | 05:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- And now there are 28. — Rhododendrites talk | 05:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept because category is now populated. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
deutsches einheits=familien=stammbuch 5.157.100.123 17:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- che cosa dobbiamo fare? --Achim (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I created this category. What is wrong? What do you want to discuss? --Magadan (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept without action, nothing to discuss. --Achim (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
This category is duplicate of category "Archaeology in Serbia" it has wrongly spelled word and is empty. Should be removed or redirected to Category:Archaeology in Serbia ? -Jozefsu (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've redirected it to the existing category. This cfd can be closed now. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks to Auntof6. I think we can delete it, it isn't in use as it had been created yesterday. --Achim (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Archeology is a common variant of archaeology. Leave the redirect - don't delete it. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with themightyquill. BMacZero (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Archeology is a common variant of archaeology. Leave the redirect - don't delete it. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks to Auntof6. I think we can delete it, it isn't in use as it had been created yesterday. --Achim (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: by Auntof6, redirect is kept. --Achim (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Löschen, da irgendeine Weiterleitung drin steckt. Jbergner (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I have turned it into a disambiguation category. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept as DAB, thanks to Auntof6. --Achim (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
This category is a subcategory of Category:Pylons, which is a disambiguation (dab) category. If pylon is so generic a term that Category:Pylons is a dab cat, then Category:Pylons by country shouldn't be a regular category, either, nor should the "Pylons in <country>" categories. It should either be a disambiguation category itself or it should be deleted, with its contents distributed to non-dab categories. The "Pylons in <country>" categories could be either deleted or turned into dab categories themselves. Auntof6 (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment Agree with Auntof6. If the mother cat is a disambiguation, children cats cannot have a tree by themselves but be distributed to the specific type or function of pylons. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure whether it's a good idea, but one could consider to de-disambig Category:Pylons making it a 'real' mother cat. --Achim (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Very few of these had anything but "Electricity pylons in X" subcategories. No reason for an additional layer of categorization for an ambiguous term. I've deleted them and move any remaining files accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
we must find consistency. Either "Roman Catholicism in...." or "Roman Catholic Church in...". Currently we find both and I guess it wouldn't be good. I am favourable to either way to name it provided it is unique for all the tree. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- The parent category is currently "Roman Catholic Church". I have been nominating subcategories for renaming to bring them in line with the parent category. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sergio, you're right, the renaming is in progress but still needs some time to get completed. --Achim (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Bulk renaming is done. --Achim (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
two villages with same name in Macedonia and Serbia; I propose to have two separate categories for each village and this category to be page for disambiguation of these new two categoeis Ehrlich91 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea, if we have files for both places. We currently have only this category. Are there files for both? We wouldn't create a category if there aren't any files for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- We visited this place in our Wikiexpedition in Prespa Region in September and took pictures from this place. Before our pictures in this category existed only images from village in Serbia (Pokrvenik1 and Pokrvenik2). These images has coordinates, so you can check once again that these images are from village in Serbia. Also, I can confirm that in the Macedonian village Pokrvenik has no mosque, as village in Serbia (pictured on those two images in category). --Ehrlich91 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- The village in southwestern Serbia has a mosque, and the coordinates are right. I took photos two years ago. I suggest adding names of the countries in the brackets. It should have been done along with adding the newer photographs from Macedonia. Cheers, --Wlodzimierz (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I would suggest to view comment from Wlodzimierz, as we can close this request and to get two separate categories for both villages in Serbia and Macedonia, names in brackets. Thank you --Ehrlich91 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree it sounds like we can take this action. Wouldn't names like "Pokrvenik, Macedonia" and "Pokrvenik, Serbia" be more standard? I don't plan to do the changes myself, because I'm not familiar enough with either place to feel I'd get it right. Let me know if there's some other way I can help. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- I created separated new category for Serbian village (Pokrvenik, Serbia) and move category Pokrvenik to Pokrvenik, Macedonia. Please check this out, and create disambiguation page on Category:Pokrvenik. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, Category:Pokrvenik is now a disambiguation category. The categories and files in it need to be moved to the appropriate new categories. I can't do that because I can't tell which ones belong where. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I created separated new category for Serbian village (Pokrvenik, Serbia) and move category Pokrvenik to Pokrvenik, Macedonia. Please check this out, and create disambiguation page on Category:Pokrvenik. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree it sounds like we can take this action. Wouldn't names like "Pokrvenik, Macedonia" and "Pokrvenik, Serbia" be more standard? I don't plan to do the changes myself, because I'm not familiar enough with either place to feel I'd get it right. Let me know if there's some other way I can help. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I would suggest to view comment from Wlodzimierz, as we can close this request and to get two separate categories for both villages in Serbia and Macedonia, names in brackets. Thank you --Ehrlich91 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- The village in southwestern Serbia has a mosque, and the coordinates are right. I took photos two years ago. I suggest adding names of the countries in the brackets. It should have been done along with adding the newer photographs from Macedonia. Cheers, --Wlodzimierz (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- We visited this place in our Wikiexpedition in Prespa Region in September and took pictures from this place. Before our pictures in this category existed only images from village in Serbia (Pokrvenik1 and Pokrvenik2). These images has coordinates, so you can check once again that these images are from village in Serbia. Also, I can confirm that in the Macedonian village Pokrvenik has no mosque, as village in Serbia (pictured on those two images in category). --Ehrlich91 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Already Done, thanks --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like this was resolved by consensus by creating a disambiguation page with links to Category:Pokrvenik, Macedonia and Category:Pokrvenik, Serbia. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Category to be deleted. I am the uploader. Wrong name, the right one is Category:Waves of the United States. Thanks! Tangopaso (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- You could take care of this by using the {{Bad name}} template. You could also just redirect the category because it's a name someone might try to use. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --lNeverCry 11:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
anime naruto video 41.137.69.125 21:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Unclear nomination by anonymous ip. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I see no good reason to keep this redirect Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- The word means "museums", so how about redirecting it to Category:Museums (unless it's our practice not to keep redirects from translations like this)? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- That would be OK, though it doesn't look like it ever pointed there before. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Museums by Butko. Please don't take action on categories under discussion unless you're going to close the discussion as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
oloturie nel mediterraneo 82.61.31.212 09:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest closing this with no action. Google Translate translates the reason as "sea cucumbers in the Mediterranean", which isn't a reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Seemingly accidental nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Wird nicht mehr benötigt, bitte löschen! Adelina 1234 (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Name error, it is Category:Río San Juan (María Trinidad Sánchez) Jos1950 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Sreejithk2000. --Achim (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Unclear what this category is for. Takeaway (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: as empty category. --JuTa 23:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
conestarse a una rec 135.84.127.141 04:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Closed as nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense bot cat. Bot created a cat for the first digits in the description of the photo File:US Navy 061227-N-0000X-001 Group photo of ship^rsquo,s gunnery officers aboard the fast aircraft carrier USS Monterey (CVL 26).jpg, thinking it was the "location" of the photo, as it has been doing for US Navy photos from specific locations. Unnecessary cat, nothing to redirect to, the photo in the cat has been put in other cats. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Support Works for me. Delete as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Done --Jarekt (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
This category is being nominated for discussion, because it's not clear if these images could have a realistic educational purpose, and thus lie within Commons Scope. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is also noted that a number of images by the uploader concerned have been removed in previous discussions. 00:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - While I don't see the point in many of the wavy pictures (seriously, wtf), the idea of a category for transgender nudity seems reasonable to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. without prejudice to review of individual images by an uninvolved party. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. The problem seems to lie primarily with the content rather than the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Die Frau heißt jetzt Würdig mit Nachnamen. Darum müsste der Name geändert werden. Hiddenhauser (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
moved to her current name -- 32X (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This category is for a fictional country that apparently appears in only one film. I think the two files in the category could be moved to the parent category for the film. See related request about the files at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Embassy of the Republic of GBANAN in Japan.jpg. Auntof6 (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Even the decent-sized English language article about the film en:Outrage (2010 film) makes no reference to the fictional republic, as far as I can see, so it seems weird to have a category for it. I would move the image of the building to the film category and delete the flag. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
In original Japanese article of アウトレイジ (2010年の映画), there is detailed description about Republic of Gbanan and the embassy of the Republic of GBANAN in Japanese. At some future date we will work an act of translation about it from Japanese to Englsh. And then in Japanese Wikipedia, there is an independent article about 『グバナン共和国』(=the Republic of Gbanan). But it is written in Japanese, sorry.--グバナン共和国大統領閣下 (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Oops! Please hear the song of the Independence Celebration Party of Gbanan.
- Gbanan Independence Celebration Party - Keiichi Suzuki (Outrage Soundtrack) YouTube
--グバナン共和国大統領閣下 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Both files in this category have been deleted, so I have tagged the category with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Inadvertently created, name contains a typo. Please do a speedy delete. The correct category (created in the meanwhile) is "Category:Unicode 1AB0-1AFF Combining Diacritical Marks Extended" Karl432 (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Deleted. @Karl432: Next time you make a typo, simply use the "move" tab to rename the category, or if it already exists, add {{bad name|Unicode 1AB0-1AFF Combining Diacritical Marks Extended}} to delete the old one (as I have just done). - Themightyquill (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The statue in question does not show Mariangelo Accursio but Accursius. I have created a new category for the statue, so this one should be deleted. Arildto (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't make the mistake, but I got confused just looking this up to confirm. I've added some distinguishing templates to help make it clearer for others as well. In the mean time, yes, support. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleting empty category. Content has been moved to Category:Statue of Accursius (Uffizi Gallery) - Themightyquill (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Unneeded category, especially since it has existed for years and still contains only one entry. There's no "by case" here: it looks like that category was intended to hold categories for individual road accidents, but those would fit just as well in the parent category and you don't need "by case" for that. In fact, the sole entry here is already a subcat of the parent category, under Category:Saint Petersburg road accidents. Auntof6 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Its name in English, as also stated by the International Federation for Gymnastics, is "Artistic Gymnastics World Championshps", see here. That applies also for the subcategories. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Yep. It's visible on a nametag in one of the photos we have from 2009 as well. I wonder why English wikipedia has the name wrong... - Themightyquill (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Don't ask me :-) I stopped looking for consistency on en.wiki -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Also for the subcats by year. And it would be great to rename the article on English Wikipedia too. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Category moved to the new name. --Ruthven (msg) 22:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the usefulness of this category. en:Clip art has a pretty vague definition in general. This category has a narrower definition, but I'm not sure it's a good one: "small, simple drawings that can be used to illustrate other works." What does "small" mean with digital/digitized art? Does clip-art need to be simple? Clip art is definitely not limited to drawings, as born-digital images are clip art. And pretty well anything can be used to illustrate works - that's largely the point of wikimedia commons. Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Themightyquill (though I am quite sure about it). FDMS 4 22:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@FDMS4: I've started sorting out the content, but I'm not sure where to put everything. Care to lend a hand? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I recategorised a gallery and nominated a file for deletion; I'm afraid my available time is currently too limited for much more than that. FDMS 4 20:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Images sorted, category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete this category and all its sub-categories except Category:Rail tracks in Greater Manchester. All the sub-categories each contain just one sub-category of "Rail tracks in..." which are legitimate, and should be kept. Themightyquill (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support That makes sense to me, too. While we're at it, some of this one's parent cats could use similar reorganizing. For example, both England and the UK have categories for rail tracks underneath categories for tracks. None of these seem to have any type of track other than rail tracks, so we could dispense with the plain "tracks" categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support I agree that "tracks" is ambiguous since we can also have animal tracks and vehicle tracks should the need arise. For the time being, all these could probably to into "rail tracks" categories. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I think this cat should be merged to its parent, Category:Drawings by artist. (That cat also contains subcats for people who were painters, by the way.) I don't see a need to separate drawings that were made by people who were painters; we don't have categories for drawings by sculptor, stained glass artist, engraver, etc., although those artists would also do drawings in the course of their work. This cat's subcat, Category:Details of drawings by painter should be renamed to Category:Details of drawings by artist, and some of the entries in Category:Details of drawings could be moved there. Auntof6 (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or merge, basically agree. No need to keep two categories which are basically the same thing. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
For the sake of symmetry and functionality, I might suggest that Category:Paintings by painter and Category:Sculptures by sculptor (and other similar categories in the Category:Works by artist category tree) might be better off disambiguated with "by artist" like Category:Cartoons by artist (not by cartoonist) and Category:Illustrations by artist (not by illustrator). - Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Even though I just got through renaming a bunch of categories from "by author" to "by <specific type of artist>" (sculptor, painter, portraitist, etc.), I would be OK with this. (Someone must have thought that "author" was equivalent to "creator" and used it on a bunch of art categories.) --Auntof6 (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, I wouldn't find anything wrong in having a mother cat Works by artist and a subcat Sculptures by sculptor, because artist is a generic mothercat too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's certainly not technically incorrect to specify the type of artist that makes a sculpture, but there's no reason for it. It's unnecessary disambiguation. If Vincent van Gogh had made one or two sculptures, it wouldn't go in "Sculptures by painter" because he was primarily a painter. In this category tree, "sculptor" or "painter" always means the artist that created the piece, using anything other than artist is redundant and unnecessarily complicated.. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, I wouldn't find anything wrong in having a mother cat Works by artist and a subcat Sculptures by sculptor, because artist is a generic mothercat too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Merged. Ruthven (msg) 23:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:A.N.S.W.E.R. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Seems clear as per en:A.N.S.W.E.R.. Redirect? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:A.N.S.W.E.R.. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Should this category be renamed, maybe to "Icons by denomination" or something similar? The only other "by confession" category, Category:Bishops by confession, redirects to Category:Bishops by denomination. The parent category Category:Confession, which is about the sacrament/ritual of confession, doesn't seem applicable here. Auntof6 (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Move to Category:Icons by denomination with redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Icons by denomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This category is for the capital city of Cape Verde. However, it gets a lot of incorrect files in it, because "praia" means "beach" in Portuguese, and a lot of beach pictures end up here. I'd like to rename this category to Category:Praia, Cape Verde (or maybe Category:Praia (Cape Verde) to match other Cape Verdean cities). I'd then like to make this a disambiguation page. Auntof6 (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Category:Praia, Cape Verde makes sense to me, and follows our general standard for locations. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Praia, Cape Verde. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs I2brahim (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Anything in particular you wanted discussed here, I2brahim? I notice this CFD is your first edit on commons, so perhaps this was an accident. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
No response about accidental nomination? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't we move the sub-categories to XXXX_books_from_Russia? It would help to categorize by year in the parent categories, and would be coherent with the same categories for other countries, e.g. 1887 books from France. Also affected sub-cats of Category:Books from Ukraine by year. Ruthven (msg) 10:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support and while we're at it, some of them could be moved to century categories instead, because many of the subcats have only one entry. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Senapa (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the "by year" categories from the 16th-century and upmerged them to Category:16th-century books from Russia. The same could probably be done with 17th-century books (currently only 23 images and one category for that whole century of Russian books), but it's more work than I want to put in at the moment. I also deleted a bunch of empty "by year" categories. @Ruthven: Can you please run the script to move the rest to standard commons structure? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Almost every wikipedia article describes this as Bhaji. The English wikipedia article doesn't mention Chilli bites but mentions Chilli bhaji (or Mirchi Bada). Is that what's being described here? Themightyquill (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Bhaji. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
does this sculpture have copyright protection, or is it free use to photograph it? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Mercurywoodrose: I would suggest you nominate the images for deletion if you believe there is copyright infringement. I would tend to say yes they are copyright violations, but so long as the images are hosted here on commons, it makes sense to keep them grouped together in this category. If they are deleted, the category should be deleted as empty or flagged to discourage uploads. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept for now. Copyright issues belong to individual images. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Does this need to be separate from Category:Raster graphics? I recognize that there are currently separate wikipedia articles for en:Bitmap and en:Raster graphics but there is an old discussion there in which everyone seemed to agreed merge, but then did nothing, perhaps because it was too much work. Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Raster graphics. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Should perhaps be renamed to Category:Files with Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act warnings since it is a meta/information/maintenence category and not a category about such a warning itself. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Achim (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Moved. Now waiting for an admin to update the protected template that places them in the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:All Souls' Day 194.228.13.159 19:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- This category is about the traditions in the Czech Republic. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think this category should be moved to "Category:All Souls' Day in the Czech Republic" while redirecting this category to the category I proposed to be moved. ★ Poké95 00:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- This category contains Czech folk traditions. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support upmerge to Category:All Souls' Day in the Czech Republic.--Zoupan (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- This category contains Czech folk traditions. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think this category should be moved to "Category:All Souls' Day in the Czech Republic" while redirecting this category to the category I proposed to be moved. ★ Poké95 00:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: upmerged. Ruthven (msg) 12:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the discussion FDMS4 initiated at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/07/Category:Jalkhadh to Lulusar Lake road was closed by Taivo without clear conclusion after Kalbbes created this category and moved images across. It seems to me it suffers from the same problems that the original categories had. Themightyquill (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I thought, that there is clear consensus (3 participants in discussion plus me), that all category names "Road to ..." are bad. Taivo (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely, Taivo. I know you weren't responsible for this new category - I thought you just deleted the old category because it was empty, but maybe I've read the dates wrong. Anyway, we need to do something with these files. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Taivo, I'm sorry that I created this category against a consensus established that all category names "Road to ..." are bad. I have no objection to the deletion of this category and the images in it moved to more appropriate categories. I would also welcome any suggestions on how to deal with such "Road to ..." images. (My goal is to categorize images in a way that users can find them in as geographically accurate categories as possible.) Please forgive me for any problems and confusions I caused. Kalbbes (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:N15 (Pakistan). @Kalbbes: you can rename the "road to..." categories with the official name of the road, and use sub-categories to indicate a specific spot, e.g. Category:Karakoram Highway in Pakistan. Ruthven (msg) 12:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Any reason why this should be categorized by its German name, rather than Category:Münster Rebellion ? Themightyquill (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: moved, per Themightyguill. Ruthven (msg) 12:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This category is too ambiguous. What does manager mean? In association football the manager can be either the team's head coach or a team manager - not to mention an administrator with executive functions. In other business usually the manager is an executive or an administrator. Thus we must decide what we mean as "Manager". SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- We have Category:Music managers, Category:Restaurateurs, Category:Sports executives and administrators all in Category:Businesspeople by type (and I just added Category:Talent agents to the same category). I'm not sure if Category:Managers is a useful category. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- If only this had been dealt with back in 2014 when the problem was first noticed. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are right. Well we are still in time to fix it, I hope. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- If only this had been dealt with back in 2014 when the problem was first noticed. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Businesspeople as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/12/Category:Managers by country - Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There's only 1 image in this category so IMHO there's no need for a category at the moment,, Ofcourse if anyone can provide a solid reason for keeping I'd be more than happy to withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted - Been open for 3 months and no one seems to object to it being deleted so I've moved the images and have tagged the category for deletion, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There was 5 (now 4) images in this category however IMHO there's not enough images to justify a category (If there was over 10 I wouldn't have a problem but as there's only 4/5 images the category seems pointless), Ofcourse if anyone can provide a solid reason for keeping I'd be more than happy to withdraw, Thanks --–Davey2010Talk 19:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted - Been open for 3 months and no one seems to object to it being deleted so I've moved the images and have tagged the category for deletion, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It's unclear how this differs from Category:Christmas market in Vienna, Rathausplatz. darkweasel94 11:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Lösungsvorschlag: Ich hab leider übersehen, dass es die Category:Christmas market in Vienna, Rathausplatz schon gibt. Die Category:Wiener Christkindlmarkt kann gerne unter Category:Christmas market in Vienna, Rathausplatz subsumiert werden d.h. keine 2 Christmas market - Kategorien. Sinn machen würde auch eine eigene Unterkategorie "Wiener Christkindlmarkt 2016". Gruß --Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 13:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what way to go (since "Christmas market" and "Christkindlmarkt" aren't exact synonyms), but they are definitely the same market. A redirect from one to the other would obviously make sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Themightyquill, I have nothing against the redirect, you are free to do that if you wish. Sincerely Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 10:04, 25. December 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Christmas market in Vienna, Rathausplatz. I think Category:Christkindlmarkt, Rathausplatz, Vienna would be better, so if anyone wants to move it there, I won't object. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This category and its similarly-named subcats seem to be at least poorly named, and possibly unneeded. As near as I can tell, they are for churches which have patron saints, but there is no separate category for churches of that saint in the location. I think the content of these categories could be moved up to the "Churches in <place>" categories. and the "other churches" categories deleted. Just the fact that they aren't in the "by patron saint" categories would show that there is no category for the saint. Besides that, some of the churches in these categories may not have a patron saint at all. Of course, this assumes that we don't want to create single-entry categories for these. Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This category tree makes no sense. If it's as you say, it might as well be called Category:Churches in France sorted by location but not sorted by patron saint. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete awkward.--Zoupan (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: No opposition in months. Would you like to go ahead and make the changes as you see fit? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thank you, yes, I will. You can close this request either now or when I have finished the changes. If the latter, I will report here when done. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have emptied all the affected categories and tagged them with {{Empty page}}. Some were moved to appropriate categories for their location. Some were "<patron saint> churches in <location>" categories, and were moved to the "churches by patron saint" category for their location. Some just had the "other" category removed because they were already in a church category for a location. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: No opposition in months. Would you like to go ahead and make the changes as you see fit? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Images re-organized and categories deleted as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The only file was moved to Category:Grand Hotel (Scarborough) Htm (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as redirect. I've redirected it. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) I don't think it should have been. If we follow en:WP's disambiguation rules, brackets mean "is a", whereas a comma means "is at". Postal addresses in the UK follow the latter format, and I think it makes sense for us to do that too. One advantage is that we avoid surplus brackets, and another is that it's a format people are familiar with. Hence, this is the correct naming convention for files in this category. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Send the redirect the other direction. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds logical RSLlGriffith (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu is right that this is disambiguation by location, not type. I wouldn't necessarily force the move over such a point, but since this category was moved the other direction and nominated for discussion, it makes sense to choose the right category name at this point. Moved to Category:Grand Hotel, Scarborough, leaving a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see the difference between Category:Panelling and Category:Panelings (architecture). The latter is a sub-cat of the former. The former is a sub-cat of Category:Wall coverings (interior architectural elements) while the latter is a sub-category of the broader Category:Interior architectural elements. There may be a difference but I don't see it. Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do not see it either, same with Boiseries, we should take/keep the files in Cat:Panelling--Oursana (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to have ossified. I agree with the comments above. We also have 'Panels (architecture)', which complicates the thing further. I can see no reason why these cats need to be, effectively, duplicates of each other. Why don't we group the lot under 'Panelling' ? We could sub cat with panelling by country/style/material/use etc. if necessary, as per other major cats. And what's with the superfluous and odd 's' on the end of it. Acabashi (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Seems there is a consensus that those category names are indeed duplicates of each others, which I join. Will merge all that under Panellings, as suggested (but using the plural, as is the use here). Will move Boiseries to Carved panellings, as it is prone to confusion, since "boiseries" is the french translation for pannelings.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This category and its similarly-named subcats seem to be at least poorly named, and possibly unneeded. As near as I can tell, they are for churches that haven't been categorized by patron saint because the patron saint isn't known. The churches themselves certainly aren't all unidentified. I'm not sure we need categories for this use; I think the contents could be moved to the general category for churches in each location, and then delete the "unidentified" category. For example, move the contents of Category:Unidentified patron saint churches in Alpes-de-Haute-Provence to Category:Churches in Alpes-de-Haute-Provence. If people think these cats should be kept, could they be renamed, perhaps to something like "Churches in <department> to be categorized by patron saint"? Of course, that would raise the question, are we sure that all these churches have a patron saint at all? Auntof6 (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete A patron saint church is always identified. Support scrapping all sub-categories and simply move content into "Churches in X", as suggested.--Zoupan (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I'd agree to delete as well. No opposition in months. Go ahead. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Will do. It's in progress, and I'll report here when finished if the request isn't closed by then. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK, done. Categories are emptied and tagged with {{Speedy}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Closing -- cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Most categorries for this country are by Côte d'Ivoire, but some have been renamed by Ivory Coast. There has to be a choise for one name of this country. Stunteltje (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Judging solely by the goal of symmetry (not by the larger debate over what name commons should use for the country), I'd definitely support a move, leaving a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Close -- cat moved (actually switched with redirect, which was at Côte d'Ivoire), redirect left. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd like this category to be merged with the category "McKinsey & Company", which is probably better as the company's name on its logo. Blythwood (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes good idea. Go ahead. Jane023 (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Are we sure they are the same company? I realize that one image is in both categories, but that could be a fluke. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Merged and redirected to Category:McKinsey & Company, which appears to be the preferred name. --rimshottalk 23:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
According to the name of this category, each subcat here should indicate both an age and a gender. They don't. Category:Calves implies age, more or less, but doesn't indicate gender. Category:Cows and Category:Heifers indicate female, but not age: the definition of these is based on whether the animal has reproduced, not her age. Everything for male cattle is under Category:Male cattle; nothing under that category is any indication of age.
So what do we do with this category? My inclination would be to replace it with a category for cattle by gender and not worry about classifying by age. Cows and Heifers would be put under a new "female cattle" category. That and the categories for calves and males could go directly under either Category:Cattle or Category:Cattle by condition.
Any other ideas? Auntof6 (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think that all categories in this category schould be in the main category (Category:Cattle) asw I don't search for them in a subcategory Category:Cattle by condition Kersti (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Cattle per Kersti Nebelsiek. The status quo is inaccurate. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Done: upmerged to Category:Cattle per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 05:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Category:Torture in the United States is contained in the parent category Category:Torture by country. I wonder whether it should be moved to Category:Torture by the United States -- since all the recently documented torture, by US officials, has been in Guantanamo, or other foreign bases. Geo Swan (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- But plenty of the images in the category are of torture committed in but not by the United States (government). I understand your concerns, but I'd say leave it alone. I think you could make the claim that even images of guantanamo are related to the issue of torture within American society and therefore, "(The issue of) torture in the United States" so Category:Torture in the United States works. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 05:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Suggest to rename it to "Category:Male actors from Germany" in order to avoid confusion. Similarly, "Category:Actors by country", "Category:Actresses by country", all other categories "Actors from YYY" and "Actresses from YYY" should be renamed to make the gender explicit.
Most occupation categories "XXX by country" and "XXX from YYY" refer to both males and females. Even if this naming was unusual in American or British English, it should be considered that a lot of non-native speakers (like me) are editing on commons. Being too explicit can hardly cause any harm. B.Hort (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Actor is already male and actress is female. In my opinion, this name change is, at least in this case, redundant. --Hiddenhauser (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- We certainly don't need to say "female actresses" because the word actress refers only to females. It might help to say "male actors" so that people used to using actor for both genders don't put female ones in the male category. English Wikipedia uses "male actors" and "actresses", with "actors" being a parent category to both. However, I wonder why we separate these at all. Eventually, in this area and others, we will have to address the case of people who don't identify as male or female, either by creating separate categories, combining them all without specifying gender, or grouping all the "other" (not a good solution). --Auntof6 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, let's start a the top. I'm certainly on board with creating Category:Male actors and equivalent sub-categories (by country, etc). The question is, do we keep Category:Actors as a parent for both Category:Male actors and Category:Actresses (and Category:Actors by country as a parent category for Category:Male actors by country and Category:Actresses by country), or not? We certainly have a gender-neutral category for everything else in Category:Performing artists and most occupation categories, then subdivide by gender. The only similar split we have is between Category:Waiters and Category:Waitresses but we have no Category:Comediennes. Actors/Actresses is one of the few occupations where no alternative gender-neutral term exists. Increasingly, actresses is replaced with female actor. As the linked wikipedia article mentions, the Screen Actors Guild annually gives out awards for "Best Male Actor" and "Best Female Actor". We might consider doing the same. You'll note that there are already a number of photos of women in Category:Actors. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- There should be a parent category for the occupation. If it's called Category:Actors, then the gender intersection categories could be called Category:Male actors and Category:Female actors. Alternatively, if it's called Category:Actors and actresses then the intersection categories would be Category:Actors and Category:Actresses. It doesn't matter much, it's just naming. Care should be taken with the links to Wikidata though. d:Q33999 is gender neutral. --ghouston (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- In enwiki, the categories are set up with en:Category:German actors as gender neutral, and subcategories en:Category:German male actors and en:Category:German actresses. The Commons category Category:Actors from Germany incorrectly links with en:Category:German actors. --ghouston (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think it would be least confusing to match the enwiki categories. Then we just have to apply Hiddenhauser's suggestion and rename "actors" categories to "male actors", the actresses can be left unchanged, and the former "actor" categories become redirects that can be converted to parent categories as desired. In the meantime, I'll fix the male wikidata links with a script. --ghouston (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, let's start a the top. I'm certainly on board with creating Category:Male actors and equivalent sub-categories (by country, etc). The question is, do we keep Category:Actors as a parent for both Category:Male actors and Category:Actresses (and Category:Actors by country as a parent category for Category:Male actors by country and Category:Actresses by country), or not? We certainly have a gender-neutral category for everything else in Category:Performing artists and most occupation categories, then subdivide by gender. The only similar split we have is between Category:Waiters and Category:Waitresses but we have no Category:Comediennes. Actors/Actresses is one of the few occupations where no alternative gender-neutral term exists. Increasingly, actresses is replaced with female actor. As the linked wikipedia article mentions, the Screen Actors Guild annually gives out awards for "Best Male Actor" and "Best Female Actor". We might consider doing the same. You'll note that there are already a number of photos of women in Category:Actors. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer the current structure. Actors for men and Actresses for women. Before actor or another word becomes a universally accepted socalled gender-neutral word for people who act for a living, Commons should not follow, because established usage of certain words have a much longer history than gender-neutralising movements.--Roy17 (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Universal acceptance of a term seems like an rather unfair requirement for anything. "Actors" remains ambiguous, whereas "male actors" and "female actors" are not. I think that's more important than history. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Film industry around the world doesnt find it ambiguous: for example en:Category:Film awards for lead actor 94/97 awards are called Best Actor (not Best Male Actor), for a man in a leading role.--Roy17 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- That only shows that it's not universal (or even dominant) which I've already conceded, but if any significant minority of people are using "female actor" then "actor" becomes ambiguous. Given that The Guardian and the Observer have been using "actor" for both genders since at least 2010,[1] it's not some minor fringe usage. It's certainly plausible that users might accidentally place a female actor in a subcategory of Category:Actors thinking it was genderless, but no one would make the same mistake if we used "male actors" and "female actors." -Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- The parent category for members of the occupation is still missing, e.g., to match Category:Dancers and practically every other occupation. I'm surprised nobody has created it yet, but it should be Category:Actors and actresses, with the current naming. Category:Waiters and Category:Waitresses have the same issue. Category:Female fishermen is an odd one. --ghouston (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Film industry around the world doesnt find it ambiguous: for example en:Category:Film awards for lead actor 94/97 awards are called Best Actor (not Best Male Actor), for a man in a leading role.--Roy17 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Universal acceptance of a term seems like an rather unfair requirement for anything. "Actors" remains ambiguous, whereas "male actors" and "female actors" are not. I think that's more important than history. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm coming across this problem repeatedly when matching enwp and commons categories. On enwp, "male actors" and "actresses" are subcategories of "actors". Given that this discussion started in 2016(!), perhaps the easiest approach for now is what @Ghouston: suggested, and to create the "actors and actresses" tree, and then rename categories later if there's consensus for that? (@Rosiestep: this is related to what we talked about at Wikimania.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- We have Hiddenhauser and Roy17 against, but everybody else who commented apparently in favour of some form of renaming, so I'd say so. The suggestion I made is the minimal change, renaming "actors" to "male actors" and leaving actresses unchanged. --ghouston (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm counting in favour: B.Hort, Auntof6, Themightyquill, you, and me. --ghouston (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: and I discussed this issue at Wikimania. I support his recommendation. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: So let's go for it? If you want to make a start and demo a few categories, I can help with the roll-out, particularly with cleaning up the sitelinks. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've renamed and linked Category:Theatre actors from Singapore, so we can consider how that looks. Doing the whole lot will obviously be an enormous job, that would need to be done with the help of scripts and feeding renaming requests into User:CommonsDelinker/commands. --ghouston (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll come up with some suggestions that I find least confusing.
- Proposal 202005A
- Actors and actresses (or another umbrella term, e.g. performers)
- Actors
- Actresses
- LGBT actors
- Actors and actresses (or another umbrella term, e.g. performers)
- Proposal 202005B
- Actors
- Male actors
- Female actors
- LGBT actors
- Actors
- If other genders are renamed to XX actors, so should actresses to avoid confusion. Male, Female, LGBT... Perfect?--Roy17 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- LGBT? Gender? Seriously? --E4024 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: rename all "actors" categories to "male actors", and convert the newly created redirect categories "actors" into gender neutral entries. Not only is this the general consensus of the discussion, but a practice that has been widely in circulation on Commons even before the nomination. Category:Actors will be taken care of shortly and this change can be rolled out to its child categories, but these require care. There are many linked Wikidata items that require cross-project adjusting, so immediate and rushed category renamings should be avoided to not create a logistical nightmare. --ƏXPLICIT 07:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Following the example of en.wiki, these categories should be renamed according the Associated Press' stylebook for U.S. Cities, wich do not require the U.S. state for 30 well known cities. Currently the categories of the said cities on Commons which still are accompanied by the state are:
- Cleveland, Ohio
- Dallas, Texas
- Denver, Colorado
- Honolulu, Hawaii
- Miami, Florida
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
I would make an exception for Phoenix, Arizona, and San Antonio, Texas and St. Louis, Missouri; the former because Phoenix can be a disambiguation page itself being a mythological bird, a city and a galaxy, the latter two because San Antonio in Spanish means "Saint Anthony" and can lead to confusion, same for St. Louis which can mislead a reader. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The AP stylebook is about written text, and that doesn't apply here. Here it's more important to avoid incorrect things getting into the categories. This isn't as much of an issue on Wikipedia as it is here, because if you get to the wrong Wikipedia article, you can quickly realize that when you realize that what you're reading isn't about the place you were interested in. Here, it can be difficult or impossible to determine that just from what's in the category. There's also a lot of potential for wrong things to get categorized in an unqualified category not only by humans, but also by automated upload processes. Automated processes are notorious for parsing individual words out of whatever they're uploading and adding those as categories. It's much better for categories with unqualified names to be disambiguation categories.
- One other note: there is a related CFD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/03/Category:Amarillo. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Auntof6, tell me how one could possibly find another Milwaukee elsewhere... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- [out of thread] Amarillo is a different matter, it's not part of the AP's stylebook scheme, and I had withdrawn my opposition to turning it into Amarillo, Texas. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- The possibilities aren't limited to things that we have categories for, nor to things whose names start with Milwaukee. Things that could be called just Milwaukee include Category:Milwaukee (apple), Category:Milwaukee Bucks (major sports teams are often referred to by just their city name), Category:Milwaukee Brewers (same note as previous), Category:Milwaukee Admirals (same again), Category:Milwaukee River, Category:Milwaukee Avenue (Chicago), Category:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Category:Milwaukee (ship, 1929), Category:USS Milwaukee (C-21)... Need I go on? There are several other ships and another street or two, and that's only in what we have categories for. en:Milwaukee (disambiguation) shows more, including a couple of unincorporated communities. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Auntof6, you're an intelligent person. You know that there are also London and London, Ontario, East London; Liverpool, Liverpool, Australia, and so on... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, and I know that there are automated upload processes that can't distinguish between those and often assign wrong ones. There are also humans who don't realize that their London or Milwaukee or Paris or whatever isn't the only one, or that just because there's a category with the name, that doesn't mean it's the one you want. This is as much a problem on the category assigning side as it is on the reading side. This is why I think they should all be qualified. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- If a human from Paris, Texas, assumes that theirs is the only Paris, I guess that this is the last of our problems as most probably doesn't even know either Wikipedia or Commons... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. said out of metaphor, if one is here and is seeking for something, it's 99.999% likely they know that Paris is the capital of France and Paris, Texas is more famous as a film than a place itself.
- If a human from Paris, Texas, assumes that theirs is the only Paris, I guess that this is the last of our problems as most probably doesn't even know either Wikipedia or Commons... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, and I know that there are automated upload processes that can't distinguish between those and often assign wrong ones. There are also humans who don't realize that their London or Milwaukee or Paris or whatever isn't the only one, or that just because there's a category with the name, that doesn't mean it's the one you want. This is as much a problem on the category assigning side as it is on the reading side. This is why I think they should all be qualified. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Auntof6, you're an intelligent person. You know that there are also London and London, Ontario, East London; Liverpool, Liverpool, Australia, and so on... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Auntof6, tell me how one could possibly find another Milwaukee elsewhere... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom, the the recent change on Wikipedia, and to align them with the categories for other large US cities, like Category:Chicago, Category:Houston, and Category:Minneapolis. There is very little chance of confusing these cities with other topics, and we should use concise names when possible. - Eureka Lott 21:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- @EurekaLott: as you know from discussion at Commons talk:Batch uploading/Geograph#Cleveland there is some risk of confusion. In this case I would say from humans uploading there is little but humans may well expect to find Cleveland at Category:Cleveland, Ohio as most city categories are like that anyway. Out of topics ambiguous with "Cleveland" the former county is the only likely conflict I would expect, but Cleveland, Ohio is an active city known by people outside the US while I don't think many know of Cleveland, England outside of the area. For this reason I don't think making this one primary would be too much of a problem on the other hand the title is natural and consistent so there doesn't seem to be any large need to change it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see why a en.wikipedia decision should have any implications for commons in this case. Either name is technically correct; the question is, which rendering is more useful for our purposes here on commons? Auntof6 has given some valid reasons why disambiguating by state would be useful. Blackcat, EurekaLott, do you have any reasons why removing the states would be more useful for commons users?- Themightyquill (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because no one looks for Honolulu, Hawaii, for example. AP's stylebook has a logic. I concede that Duluth must be accompanied by Minnesota because it's not famous enough to immediately locate it (unless you're a fan of Bob Dylan or a professor of Geography). But Honolulu, Miami, Milwaukee, New York City, etc. are far more known than the states where they are locate, which makes pointless indicate the state. Don't look at the names with an U.S.-centric view, consider that outside of the US the major cities are known more than the states where they are in. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- And you are concerned that someone might search for just "Honolulu" or "Miami" and when "Honolulu, Hawaii" or "Miami, Florida" comes up as the first result, they might not understand that it's the same place? That seems highly unlikely to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yes, Themightyquill, if it weren't for the fact that Honolulu without "Hawaii" is largely assessed; I don't think that AP invented a stylebook from scratch but registered the fact that's customary using some city names with no state (as matter of fact and for what is worth, Google gives almost 80 milion results of "Honolulu" and less than 55 million of "Honolulu, Hawaii". For what is worth, I say again). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that stylebooks are for written text, which doesn't apply here. Commons is a repository, not a document. Here our priority should be setting things up to promote accurate categorizing. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- I kept it in mind, Auntof6: but why should a repository be something different than a written text, if the naming rules are stated once and for all? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's different because stylebook rules are written for prose. They exist to make prose better for the reader. With prose, there's always a human reading who is able to make inferences based on context. For example, if reading an article about places in Texas and "Paris" is mentioned without any qualifier, they could be pretty sure that it didn't mean the French city, even if they weren't familiar with the place in Texas. Our category names are not prose. They are labels. They are often assigned by bots that can't make inferences or see context. They can be assigned or used by people who don't speak the language we currently use for all categories, by people who don't understand the category system, and by people who use the first suggested category when searching for what they want. As long as we have unqualified names that are for "main topics" instead of being dab pages, we will have things miscategorized, and we will not be able to find them all to fix them. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I also don't see why a stylebook would be used as the deciding factor on this issue. Disambiguating by state is undeniably clearer, virtually eliminating any potential for confusion when a person or a bot is adding a category. If redirects are in place, there is still some potential to put an image in the wrong place, but less so than using an un-disambiguated category name. It's also consistent, not requiring us to consult the AP stylebook or English wikipedia, or debate over whether a city is notable enough to stand alone. It's not a major advantage, but it's definitely an advantage. As of yet, I've still seen no explanation of why consistency with AP stylebook is an advantage to commons, and I've seen no explanation of why disambiguating by state (with redirects) causes any kind of disadvantage to commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Auntof6, Themightyquill: thus we abdicate from an assessed stylebook in order to get prone to the imperfection of a bot. Wonderful. To be clear, for me a bot should never perform mass uploads especially on a project where free licence is crucial (you don't know what a bot is uploading). But once we have allowed a bot to perform such operations, it never should operate fine categorization, but let this to be performed by a human eye. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- If by "abdicate from an assessed stylebook" you mean not doing things according to that stylebook, I would say that not everything in that kind of stylebook is applicable to Commons; I've said why elsewhere here. As for whether a bot should do mass uploads and/or categorize, those are outside the scope of this discussion; the fact is that bots do those things, and we need to take that into account. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Auntof6, Themightyquill: thus we abdicate from an assessed stylebook in order to get prone to the imperfection of a bot. Wonderful. To be clear, for me a bot should never perform mass uploads especially on a project where free licence is crucial (you don't know what a bot is uploading). But once we have allowed a bot to perform such operations, it never should operate fine categorization, but let this to be performed by a human eye. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I also don't see why a stylebook would be used as the deciding factor on this issue. Disambiguating by state is undeniably clearer, virtually eliminating any potential for confusion when a person or a bot is adding a category. If redirects are in place, there is still some potential to put an image in the wrong place, but less so than using an un-disambiguated category name. It's also consistent, not requiring us to consult the AP stylebook or English wikipedia, or debate over whether a city is notable enough to stand alone. It's not a major advantage, but it's definitely an advantage. As of yet, I've still seen no explanation of why consistency with AP stylebook is an advantage to commons, and I've seen no explanation of why disambiguating by state (with redirects) causes any kind of disadvantage to commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's different because stylebook rules are written for prose. They exist to make prose better for the reader. With prose, there's always a human reading who is able to make inferences based on context. For example, if reading an article about places in Texas and "Paris" is mentioned without any qualifier, they could be pretty sure that it didn't mean the French city, even if they weren't familiar with the place in Texas. Our category names are not prose. They are labels. They are often assigned by bots that can't make inferences or see context. They can be assigned or used by people who don't speak the language we currently use for all categories, by people who don't understand the category system, and by people who use the first suggested category when searching for what they want. As long as we have unqualified names that are for "main topics" instead of being dab pages, we will have things miscategorized, and we will not be able to find them all to fix them. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I kept it in mind, Auntof6: but why should a repository be something different than a written text, if the naming rules are stated once and for all? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that stylebooks are for written text, which doesn't apply here. Commons is a repository, not a document. Here our priority should be setting things up to promote accurate categorizing. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yes, Themightyquill, if it weren't for the fact that Honolulu without "Hawaii" is largely assessed; I don't think that AP invented a stylebook from scratch but registered the fact that's customary using some city names with no state (as matter of fact and for what is worth, Google gives almost 80 milion results of "Honolulu" and less than 55 million of "Honolulu, Hawaii". For what is worth, I say again). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- And you are concerned that someone might search for just "Honolulu" or "Miami" and when "Honolulu, Hawaii" or "Miami, Florida" comes up as the first result, they might not understand that it's the same place? That seems highly unlikely to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because no one looks for Honolulu, Hawaii, for example. AP's stylebook has a logic. I concede that Duluth must be accompanied by Minnesota because it's not famous enough to immediately locate it (unless you're a fan of Bob Dylan or a professor of Geography). But Honolulu, Miami, Milwaukee, New York City, etc. are far more known than the states where they are locate, which makes pointless indicate the state. Don't look at the names with an U.S.-centric view, consider that outside of the US the major cities are known more than the states where they are in. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Blackcat, abdicate/abandon means giving up something you already had. To my knowledge, neither English Wikipedia or Commons has ever had any policy of consistency with the AP styleguide, so I really don't understand your continued insistence. Moreover, Wikimedia Commons, in any number of ways, has specific style guidelines that are quite different from those of English Wikipedia. It's a different project with different goals. There's no reason that we should follow wikipedia any more than wiktionary or wikivoyage style.
- Commons is effectively a catalog/database of files, so if there is going to be a style guide that we were to adapt, it would more reasonably be one associated with a library catalogue or database. Perhaps not all, but plenty of those would categorize major US cities alongside their states, and it usually looks something like this: "USA -- Ohio -- Cleveland" but that hardly seems appropriate here. Having the current "City, State" seems to be a good compromise between usability, clarity and common usage. It's not as though, in Cleveland, no one ever says the words "Cleveland, Ohio." It doesn't sound awkward to the ear. They certainly included it in their address when posting mail (even though a zip code makes it unnecessary).
- As I've said, it could be there's a good reason not to disambiguate by US cities by state, but what happens to be written in the AP styleguide is not a good reason. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's understandable that people would be concerned about what this means for bots, but I think it's a misguided objection. For most of the nominated categories, the proposed new name already redirects to the disambiguated version, so any automated categorizations are already landing in those categories. I watch one of the disambiguation categories, and practically everything placed there should have gone in the city category. I expect the same applies to the other disambiguation category. - Eureka Lott 14:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Unhelpful to create risk of confusion between cities of the same name, rather than working to avoid such risk. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Tell me Serge, how many cities named Milwaukee or Honolulu do you know? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be just cities, though, does it? Apparently, there are quite a number of other Milwaukees and Honolulus since they both have disambiguation pages on wikipedia: (en:Milwaukee_(disambiguation), en:Honolulu (disambiguation). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Still I don't find the problem. Bots are instructed to recognize "Boston" as the Capital city of Massachusetts, for example. The problem is not the bot, is how one instructs it. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
PS. To be clear, you're writing down reasons that have been proven inconsistent on en.wiki. I conceded a minimum of doubt for those cities that might lead to ambiguity for a non-English speaker, but the rest of the doubts are not backed up by facts.
- Still I don't find the problem. Bots are instructed to recognize "Boston" as the Capital city of Massachusetts, for example. The problem is not the bot, is how one instructs it. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be just cities, though, does it? Apparently, there are quite a number of other Milwaukees and Honolulus since they both have disambiguation pages on wikipedia: (en:Milwaukee_(disambiguation), en:Honolulu (disambiguation). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Tell me Serge, how many cities named Milwaukee or Honolulu do you know? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, I would completely support Wikipedia's decision to keep articles for these major cities non-disambiguated by state, but Wikipedia has different purposes and different qualities than commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Still I don't find the opposition convincing. If your concern is that a bot might put something i.e. in a wrong Cleveland, well, a disambiguation will not lower the possibilities of putting it in the wrong Cleveland anyway. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think it would lower the possibility. If the unqualified name is for disambiguation, then fewer files would end up in a category for the wrong place. If its for a specific place, we will continue getting incorrect things put into it.
- There could very well be cities whose names can't mean anything other than the city. Many, though, can, if not in English then in other languages. There are categories with unqualified names that have to be cleaned out regularly because of this. An example is Category:Praia, the capital of Cape Verde. There may be no other city called Praia, or it may be the main one, but this category frequently gets media in it for beaches because praia means beach in Portuguese. There are many other categories like that. Why not be consistent and qualify names names for all populated places? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Why, you ask? I throw my 2c: maybe because uploading a photo is an operation that requires an amount of intelligence to make it unsuitable for a bot? I can intentionally write "New York City" into a filename or a description, and the bot will be deceived. And this has nothing to do with the fact that there's a disambiguation or not. Bots' mission is doing in a faster way that repetitive work that a brainless monkey could do, it's not to it to substitute human eyes and brain. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are starting to be very uncivil here and I think you should stop it. We are supposed to be servicing the public when we upload images to Commmons, and there is no reason for you to start being rude to people. I admit I know very little about how bots work, but I can't imagine servicing them is more important that servicing people, no matter what. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't get you nor where I have been rude to any people (which I never mentioned as a matter of fact). I said that a bot is meant to do the same operation that a brainless monkey can do, only faster. Never mentioned the public. I said that this is an operation that requires a human's brain because it cannot be left to a bot which is brainless by definition. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I read the "brainless monkey" part too fast and owe you an apology. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't get you nor where I have been rude to any people (which I never mentioned as a matter of fact). I said that a bot is meant to do the same operation that a brainless monkey can do, only faster. Never mentioned the public. I said that this is an operation that requires a human's brain because it cannot be left to a bot which is brainless by definition. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are starting to be very uncivil here and I think you should stop it. We are supposed to be servicing the public when we upload images to Commmons, and there is no reason for you to start being rude to people. I admit I know very little about how bots work, but I can't imagine servicing them is more important that servicing people, no matter what. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Why, you ask? I throw my 2c: maybe because uploading a photo is an operation that requires an amount of intelligence to make it unsuitable for a bot? I can intentionally write "New York City" into a filename or a description, and the bot will be deceived. And this has nothing to do with the fact that there's a disambiguation or not. Bots' mission is doing in a faster way that repetitive work that a brainless monkey could do, it's not to it to substitute human eyes and brain. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Still I don't find the opposition convincing. If your concern is that a bot might put something i.e. in a wrong Cleveland, well, a disambiguation will not lower the possibilities of putting it in the wrong Cleveland anyway. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Related issues
This section is to inform interested people about some related actions.
I see that User:Blackcat has closed the related discussions about Amarillo, Texas and its architecture after withdrawing his/her objections to including the state name. Categories for Amarillo were renamed to include the state name.
However, I also see that Blackcat has moved categories of Salt Lake City from names that included the state name to names that don't. Since Blackcat was aware of the discussion on this page, and that it had expanded to the general case and not just Cleveland, and since there had been no discussion for Salt Lake City specifically, the Salt Lake City actions seem inappropriate. I think any changes of this type, whether to add a state/country/other qualifier or to remove one, should not be done until this discussion is closed, at least not done by those who are aware of this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Salt Lake City wasn't part of this discussion, Auntof6. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not specifically, but it had grown to more than just Cleveland, so we were discussing the larger issue rather than specific cases. That often happens with CFDs. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I try to explain the move, Auntof6: most part of the category tree was about Salt Lake City, thus I moved the child cat to ensure consistency. Whatever solution should get out from here, at least the category tree be consistent in one sense or in another. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the explanation. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I try to explain the move, Auntof6: most part of the category tree was about Salt Lake City, thus I moved the child cat to ensure consistency. Whatever solution should get out from here, at least the category tree be consistent in one sense or in another. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not specifically, but it had grown to more than just Cleveland, so we were discussing the larger issue rather than specific cases. That often happens with CFDs. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Auntof6 - now I'm confused. Are you saying that this issue has been discussed at length previously, and decided with clear consensus against removing states, and that we now are being asked (duped?) into discussing the same old thing all over again? I hope my question is clear enough to be answered clearly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: That's twice now that you've implied negative behaviour from Blackcat/Sergio. While I find his argument here frustrating as well, that doesn't mean he's acting rudely. Please try to assume good faith in these discussions. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Let's try not to continue to be personal, and let's also notice, acknowledge and respect sincere apologies! I'm assuming nothing and implying nothing about anyone here. Just asked a valid question. Let me rephrase it: has this issue been discussed and resolved before? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: That's twice now that you've implied negative behaviour from Blackcat/Sergio. While I find his argument here frustrating as well, that doesn't mean he's acting rudely. Please try to assume good faith in these discussions. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- The Amarillo cfd linked above seemed very unanimous, but it wasn't explicitly about the whole category tree, and didn't result in a guideline for style. Perhaps Ammodramus, Farragutful, BMacZero, and Metrónomo who commented on on that CFD would like to comment here? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, SergeWoodzing, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that this CfD, which started out about Cleveland, has become a discussion about more than just the one city. I'm saying that CfDs that start out about one specific case often grow to become more general. For example, another one where that happened is Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/08/Category:Landmarks by country. That one started out being about just things under "Landmarks by country", but ended up including everything under the general landmarks category. I've see it happen other times, but that's the only one I remember right now.
- In the case of this discussion, which started out about Cleveland, whatever decision is made should apply to all categories for populated places so that we don't have to have separate discussions for others. Does that clarify my thinking for you? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Thank you! And I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: , @SergeWoodzing: - I'd support this discussion setting a guideline for places in the United States, but not a global extension. To me the important bit of the AP stylebook is not "do not add the state name to these 30", its "add the state name to everything else". That reflects (and reinforces) the fact that the <city>, <state> formulation is much more common in the US than elsewhere. The two possible closes here (plus no consensus) are "follow the AP 30, with individual tweaks (eg Phoenix)" or "ignore the AP 30, with individual tweaks (eg NYC)". As this discussion deals with American issues on American places, it would not be appropriate to try to extend it outside of the USA.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Aren't there a few relatively unknown smaller cities, for example in the United Kingdom, which in the U.S. by the same names are large and famous? I'm no expert, but it seems to me that limiting this to only one country might defeat the purpose. Not sayin'. Just askin'. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- It wouldn't work to limit it to just one country, because there are duplicate names across countries. Remember that the Ap stylebook is for prose, to make prose read more fluidly. It doesn't apply to a data repository like Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- My point here is a substantial amount of the debate here is about the validity of the AP stylebook to Commons. That is a moot point elsewhere in the world, so discussion about the AP stylebook is not relevant. A much cleaner discussion can be held about the general case if the specific US case is avoided. I agree that a broader discussion would be good, but THIS discussion is the wrong place for it.
- On the subject of US locations: The key purpose of guidance in the AP stylebook is to add disambiguation in prose in circumstances where it might be avoided, in order to improve clarity, not to remove disambiguation in cases where its completely obvious. That's actually in keeping with Commons goals.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Another reason to keep this local to the US is the cases being considered here aren't the most useful for general discussion. Instead, look at the very largest and most prominent world cities like Shanghai, Karachi, Moscow or London. All 4 of those are ambiguous with other places in the world, would you support moves for all of those? If so, why - let's debate those on their merits, at the appropriate place. Then we can get to a consensus on whether to disambiguate them, and if we do - that will automatically flow through to the 30 US cities on the AP list. The reverse isn't necessarily true, as the case for disambiguation gets weaker the bigger the main subject. Disambiguating Cleveland doesn't automatically imply disambiguating Shanghai, but disambiguating Shanghai automatically implies disambiguating Cleveland. I'd also note that prior discussions such as that at Category talk:Melbourne tend to be very much against that sort of move.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- You've hit the nail on the head, some categories have a better claim to the base title due to PRIMARYTOPIC or naturalness to the title (eg Cambridge/Cambridge, Massachusetts. If we disambiguate Manchester and Birmingham then we should definitely disambiguate Cleveland and Boston for example. Indeed the ones listed in the APS are just optional for us unless we ignore USPLACE or consensus changes on EN. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: , @SergeWoodzing: - I'd support this discussion setting a guideline for places in the United States, but not a global extension. To me the important bit of the AP stylebook is not "do not add the state name to these 30", its "add the state name to everything else". That reflects (and reinforces) the fact that the <city>, <state> formulation is much more common in the US than elsewhere. The two possible closes here (plus no consensus) are "follow the AP 30, with individual tweaks (eg Phoenix)" or "ignore the AP 30, with individual tweaks (eg NYC)". As this discussion deals with American issues on American places, it would not be appropriate to try to extend it outside of the USA.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. Thank you! And I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Auntof6, Themightyquill et al., in this case, whatever is the outcome of this discussion, shouldn't we write somewhere a page or a subpage with a policy for U.S. places, so that it's stated once and forever? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- It would be good to document what we decide, but people might want a discussion in a more visible place before any policy/guideline changes. For all most users know, we're discussing only one category here; they probably don't realize we're proposing a change in naming conventions. However, I don't see it as being US-specific; I think it should apply to places in all countries. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Let's stay into the U.S., that I guess that it gives enough problems at it is :-) . I live in Rome, the capital city of Italy. You'll never convince me that it's as relevant as Rome, New York or Rome, Georgia -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- There's no reason to limit this to one country. Also, it's not a question of which places are more relevant, noteworthy, famous, or whatever. It's a question of doing what we can to prevent as many miscategorizations as possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. That's why I said that it's not a task for bots. Bots must upload but not categorize. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe so, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, and I also think many others that had the states eliminated from their names should be reverted. Prime reasons for this are Cleveland, Georgia, Phoenix, Alberta, Phoenix, British Columbia, San Antonio, Florida, Dallas, Florida, Dallas, Georgia Miami, Ohio, Miami, Missouri, Houston, Renfrewshire, etcetera. ----DanTD (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, yes the most famous Phoenix, Alberta, not to mention Miami in Ohio (is also there a Miami Beach on some lake in Ohio?). Who in the world has never heard about Dallas, Georgia? But also Rome, New York, though there you won't find the Pope there. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sergio, you are fighting a straw man. As far as I can see, no one is arguing that Miami, Ohio is as famous as Miami, Florida. The argument is that fame is not relevant to deciding these category images. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. And the sarcasm is also tiresome. I admire you for having the patience to reply at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- It depends. Sometimes an open sarcasm is better than hiding behind placeholders instead of writing an honest no fucking way (the reason being, if it's appropriate you can write it without asterisks as placeholders, if you know it's unappropriate it wouldn't become appropriate replacing unspeakable terms with wild cards). Themightyquill, I am arguing that it's not up to a bot to determine where a photograph must be categorized. Out of context, a bot doesn't know whether to place a photo in either place no matter its state name after the comma. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in discussing whether bots should categorize, but that is outside the scope of this discussion. Please stop bringing it up here. The relevant fact here is that they currently do categorize. Even if they stopped doing so, that wouldn't change this discussion: thete would still be reasons for qualifying place names. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- It depends. Sometimes an open sarcasm is better than hiding behind placeholders instead of writing an honest no fucking way (the reason being, if it's appropriate you can write it without asterisks as placeholders, if you know it's unappropriate it wouldn't become appropriate replacing unspeakable terms with wild cards). Themightyquill, I am arguing that it's not up to a bot to determine where a photograph must be categorized. Out of context, a bot doesn't know whether to place a photo in either place no matter its state name after the comma. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. And the sarcasm is also tiresome. I admire you for having the patience to reply at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Blackcat - If you have a problem DanTD's edit summary, address it directly. Using sarcasm doesn't help the discussion here. Second, I really don't understand what you're talking about with "bots" unless you consider someone a bot for using the hotcat gadget. Making clear category names helps everyone. Having ambiguous ones helps no one. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, so far I thought that all the rationale of your opposition laid on the ground that bots categorized images. Now I am learning that the job is done by users that use HotCat. If so, your opposition has even less ground because an user can operate manually mass categorizations and thus understand the difference between two places with the same name... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, I don't have that much of a problem with Blackcat's sarcasm, especially since I'm just as guilty of it. But as Themightyquill pointed out, fame is not a criteria for deciding these name categories. I've worked on road articles about roads that pass through both Dallas, Georgia and Dallas, Florida, the former of which is a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia. I also wrote an article about a road that passes through Cleveland, Georgia. Philadelphia, Mississippi doesn't have the population of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but the city's notorious role in the murder of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, during the civil rights movement has given it almost equal notoriety. ----DanTD (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes DanTD but provided we are talking about a bot that categorizes, out of context a bot will never know whether it's about Cleveland, Ohio, or Cleveland, Georgia (if a bot reads on a photo description simply "Cleveland" and is not clear the context is something happening in Georgia, for example). So it's perfectly useless that there's a Cleveland, Ohio. The categorization will always require a human eye. Who, in that case, knows that the Cleveland with no strings attached is the Ohio one. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Before "Quill" closes the discussion, I'd like to point out something else; Recently somebody had renamed all "Long Island, New York" related categories and topics as simply "Long Island." Prior to this, Fae had submitted some HABS images into the "Long Island" category that were actually located in Long Island, VIRGINIA. I moved them to the proper categories, but I called for others to do the same. As far as I know, nobody responded, and I ended up moving the rest. So the danger of miscategorizing images is one of the better reasons to oppose the moves. ----DanTD (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, and revert Blackcat's moves of category trees such as Category:Detroit, Michigan and Category:Indianapolis, Indiana. The state names are part of the city names. Blackcat even makes a good point for why we should have the state names included: if there's a chance that bots would confuse Cleveland, Ohio with Cleveland, Georgia, that's just another reason to include the full name instead of a truncation. This isn't particularly different from well-known individuals' names: truncating Category:Elvis Presley to Category:Elvis or Category:Adolf Hitler to Category:Hitler on the grounds of "no ambiguity", even though they're both by far the most common meanings for "Elvis" and "Hitler" respectively. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Because sources generally agree that all BUT thirty cities of the U.S. states need state name, Nyttend. It's a reliable and authoritative source from your country all in all, not an invention of mine. Your assumption has a flaw. Given a topic to be categorized, either 1. is related to a place which name is universally known (thus making useless indicating it with city, state) or 2. is not, in which case it not influent how the best known place is categorized: you could never find the next best known place either. You cannot safely assume that one knows Cleveland, Georgia, without knowing that the Cleveland universally known is the one in Ohio. At least it would be someone you will not expect to see here. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. your comparison has a flaw, too. You should compare cities with cities, not cities with people which are universally categorized by first and last name apart counted exceptions. London is by far most famous and relevant than London, Ontario, for example.
- Because sources generally agree that all BUT thirty cities of the U.S. states need state name, Nyttend. It's a reliable and authoritative source from your country all in all, not an invention of mine. Your assumption has a flaw. Given a topic to be categorized, either 1. is related to a place which name is universally known (thus making useless indicating it with city, state) or 2. is not, in which case it not influent how the best known place is categorized: you could never find the next best known place either. You cannot safely assume that one knows Cleveland, Georgia, without knowing that the Cleveland universally known is the one in Ohio. At least it would be someone you will not expect to see here. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note - on English Wikipedia, the main consideration is what an average English speaker would think about when (s)he seees/hears the name; here, it's what an average person would. These are not necessarily the same. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good point, but it's only part of the issue. Comparing English Wikipedia's use of names for articles with Commons' use of names for media groupings (aka categories) is comparing apples and oranges. If a category name on English Wikipedia isn't complete, you still have a good chance of figuring things out by reading the text in the articles. Here, there's less chance of that because we have images, not text: a picture of a building or street or car or whatever in one country usually looks pretty much like one in another country. There are exceptions, of course (the Eiffel Tower, the Taj Mahal, the Sydney Opera House, etc.), but we need to consider all the files, not just the ones that are very recognizable. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I don't think the state's part of the name technically, but it is still common usege. While I agree that most of the cities should have the state, isn't "Indianapolis, Indiana" a bit tautological like "Worcester, Worcestershire" wouldn't Indianapolis at least be be better titled without the state?. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose (including other cities like Detroit). Better to remove any chance of ambiguity and have a consistent, predictable naming scheme. kennethaw88 • talk 05:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. What problem does renaming these categories solve? —howcheng {chat} 03:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Howcheng, yours is, so far, the most reasonable motivation to oppose my proposal. At least it has a different rationale than assuming that a Wikicommoner knows Cleveland, Georgia but not Cleveland, Ohio. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Move to close
It's clear that Sergio/Blackcat does not have consensus to move these categories. I don't see the point in arguing anymore. Any reason why I should not close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Cleveland which is not the undisputed primary topic for the Wikipedia article, (due to Cleveland for example (the original) which Cleveland, Ohio was likely indirectly named for (see surname db). As as been mentioned by others the state is very often used to refer to the places and almost all US cities are at "Placename, State" it surely would make sense for Cleveland to remain a DAB. What about Boston, maybe that one should also be disambiguated, it is named after the Lincolnshire town and the Lincolnshire town and the band together gets around 1844 views v 5303 views for Boston, I'll levee a note there of this discussion. I would urge the closing user to consider the indervidual categories separelely as Dallas seems sensible but not Cleveland (note that Dallas is already primary as it redirects there with a hatnote to Category:Dallas (disambiguation)). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Crouch, Swale I know that there are several cities in the world that share the same name. Yet, again, you too are assuming that a Commoner ignores that Boston, Mass. is predominant in the use on respect to Boston, Lincolnshire; or that such Commoner knows Boston in England and ignores there's a Boston in Massachusetts. I mean, this rationale is counterintuitive. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- What I am trying to say is that Boston, MA is not overwhelmingly more likely (per the page views and the fact that it is often referred to as such, unlike London or Paris unless you count the band to be a subtopic which I don't think it is). There are also many other meanings beside the 3 I mentioned. If users are ignoring the other meaning(s) as you are suggesting then maybe a DAB page there is more appropriate, Category:Hyde Park is an example of where this has been applied. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, I am not suggesting that users ignore the other meanings, I am suggesting that is very unlikely that an average commoners, when they see "Boston" wonders "which Boston, precisely?". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- If "Boston" gets less than 3 times the views than the band and the English town, do you think it might be the case that some do? Or do you think people look for those topics specifically, rather than just typing "Boston" into the search field (even though most US cities are at "City, State" anyway). If someone was adding a category they might just use "Boston, Massachusetts" anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- In this case Boston might be the U.S. city (outside of the USA nobody would call it "Boston, Mass.": when I talk about the notability of a city I consider the point of view of the averagely educated non-American observer: when you talk them about Dallas, Cleveland or Boston they are talking about Dallas, Tx, Cleveland, Oh, and Boston, Mass.) and a DAB might as well indicate the other uses of the term, don't you think? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dallas looks OK to have a primary topic (Dallas, Georgia is probably the next most likely). But as I pointed out Boston doesn't have an overwhelming dominance of page views and Cleveland looks also to be ambiguous enough to keep as a DAB. I would note that the EN Wikipedia article links directly to the English town not the band presumably because most people who know the band know Boston, MA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I guess that Chicago intended as musical group are more famous than Boston :) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- That one might also need to be DABBed as well but at least the city is the original meaning (not that that should be the determining factor). The band gets more views than the city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I guess that Chicago intended as musical group are more famous than Boston :) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dallas looks OK to have a primary topic (Dallas, Georgia is probably the next most likely). But as I pointed out Boston doesn't have an overwhelming dominance of page views and Cleveland looks also to be ambiguous enough to keep as a DAB. I would note that the EN Wikipedia article links directly to the English town not the band presumably because most people who know the band know Boston, MA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- In this case Boston might be the U.S. city (outside of the USA nobody would call it "Boston, Mass.": when I talk about the notability of a city I consider the point of view of the averagely educated non-American observer: when you talk them about Dallas, Cleveland or Boston they are talking about Dallas, Tx, Cleveland, Oh, and Boston, Mass.) and a DAB might as well indicate the other uses of the term, don't you think? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- If "Boston" gets less than 3 times the views than the band and the English town, do you think it might be the case that some do? Or do you think people look for those topics specifically, rather than just typing "Boston" into the search field (even though most US cities are at "City, State" anyway). If someone was adding a category they might just use "Boston, Massachusetts" anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, I am not suggesting that users ignore the other meanings, I am suggesting that is very unlikely that an average commoners, when they see "Boston" wonders "which Boston, precisely?". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- What I am trying to say is that Boston, MA is not overwhelmingly more likely (per the page views and the fact that it is often referred to as such, unlike London or Paris unless you count the band to be a subtopic which I don't think it is). There are also many other meanings beside the 3 I mentioned. If users are ignoring the other meaning(s) as you are suggesting then maybe a DAB page there is more appropriate, Category:Hyde Park is an example of where this has been applied. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Crouch, Swale I know that there are several cities in the world that share the same name. Yet, again, you too are assuming that a Commoner ignores that Boston, Mass. is predominant in the use on respect to Boston, Lincolnshire; or that such Commoner knows Boston in England and ignores there's a Boston in Massachusetts. I mean, this rationale is counterintuitive. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blackcat, I have great difficulty when you make statement like "outside of the USA nobody would call it 'Boston, Mass.'" when you acknowedge that you are not from the USA yourself. Unlike in most places in the world, it's quite common for Americans to include their state when describing their city. Anecdotally, I once had a European ask me why Americans always (her words) mention their state when asked where they are from. Her confusion was understandable - Germans don't say "I'm from Hannover, Lower Saxony" so why do Americans frequently say "Seattle, Washington"? It may not make sense, but they do. So far, your primary argument in favour of not including the states in these category names is common usage, and I'd suggest you are wrong about even that. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hm. No one amongst the American people I know has ever talked about Seattle, WA. They give as granted that everyone in the USA knows what one is talking about when naming Seattle. As well as San Francisco, Los Angeles or New York City... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, Themightyquill is correct: it's very common to include the state name. Maybe it has to do with the fact that the US is so big that people aren't as familiar with cities outside their own area and so we specify the state, or the fact that there are a lot of same-named cities among the states. We don't always say the state name, but it's very common.
- But the issue here isn't unique to the US. It applies to all places. Whether or not there is a primary meaning for a city name, whether or not people would know a particular city without the state or country name, the issue here is how to give us the best chance of getting things categorized correctly, whether by humans or by bots and automated processes. The more we qualify category names, the better chance we have of accurately categorizing things. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Commons can and should do at least some primary topic selection, regardless of automation errors. More disambiguation is good in terms of error reduction, but we be completely insane to do that with the following ambiguous terms: France, Moon, Art... We would not qualify those terms, because the benefit to the "reader" (ie the person wanting to download an image) outweighs the advantage to the uploader. The reader is the priority user group the site is designed to benefit, not the contributors. We would not disadvantage all the people who want to download art, because of the occasional user who wants to upload Art, Texas. These same principles apply to these categories, but obviously the cost/benefit analysis isn't so extreme.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Which is why I specifically opposed to Cleveland not to Dallas for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Commons can and should do at least some primary topic selection, regardless of automation errors. More disambiguation is good in terms of error reduction, but we be completely insane to do that with the following ambiguous terms: France, Moon, Art... We would not qualify those terms, because the benefit to the "reader" (ie the person wanting to download an image) outweighs the advantage to the uploader. The reader is the priority user group the site is designed to benefit, not the contributors. We would not disadvantage all the people who want to download art, because of the occasional user who wants to upload Art, Texas. These same principles apply to these categories, but obviously the cost/benefit analysis isn't so extreme.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hm. No one amongst the American people I know has ever talked about Seattle, WA. They give as granted that everyone in the USA knows what one is talking about when naming Seattle. As well as San Francisco, Los Angeles or New York City... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blackcat, I have great difficulty when you make statement like "outside of the USA nobody would call it 'Boston, Mass.'" when you acknowedge that you are not from the USA yourself. Unlike in most places in the world, it's quite common for Americans to include their state when describing their city. Anecdotally, I once had a European ask me why Americans always (her words) mention their state when asked where they are from. Her confusion was understandable - Germans don't say "I'm from Hannover, Lower Saxony" so why do Americans frequently say "Seattle, Washington"? It may not make sense, but they do. So far, your primary argument in favour of not including the states in these category names is common usage, and I'd suggest you are wrong about even that. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment People referring to typical US locations often include the state (unless context is established), but the state name is not part of the town's name. When they refer to the major US cities they are more likely to omit the state. Those facts are important but not directly relevant to Commons. Commons should disambiguate more freely than Wikipedia does, and the bar should be significantly lower here. The benefits of selecting a primary topic on Commons are lower (a lower proportion of our audience will be English-speaking, non-English users don't need an english primary topic), and the costs of having one are higher. That's because a bad article title is a nuisance to WP readers, but doesn't really impact editors - the article's context tells them if its the right article. In contrast a bad Commons category can lead to uploaders putting files in the wrong category, and this can have a more serious impact on users (they might select a file for the wrong term).
In terms of this discussion, moving categories like Denver is unlikely to introduce a large number of errors, but there is a non-zero risk of some occurring. Against this, what tangible benefits are there? The only category of user who might get any benefit are those who use the search box on Commons. However, as it stands the Commons search feature is not fit for purpose, as it prioritises galleries over categories. A search for Denver returns Denver Nuggets, Denver HO Model RR Club and Colorado before it even considers categories. That means the user class who might benefit in theory, won't benefit in practice. That means no benefit, and a slight risk = no move.
I'd suggest that if the base name redirects to the term with the statename - I'd Support a move over that redirect. There is NO benefit to maintaining status quo - all upload tools will treat that like if it already was at the base name, plus a soft-redirect is a real nuisance for people who get to Category:Honolulu and are after pictures. However, if the base name is a dab then I'd Oppose, unless a demonstrable benefit is shown.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with that but I was referring to the fact that it is very common (compared to say Scotland for example), w:WP:PRECISION makes reference to the fact that its common usage and consistent, it states "adding the state name is in deference to common name, not disambiguation". If we only went by what something was officially called then "Albert Einstein" wouldn't be a consideration for "Einstein" or "Newcastle upon Tyne" wouldn't for "Newcastle" etc.
- @Nilfanion: The redirects will still cause problems if people search for Honolulu, Hawaii (because of the fact that almost all are titled that way and common usage) and have to click through to get to Honolulu. I think this would be better discussed elsewhere (such as the village pump) about turning them into normal redirects but I would imagine it has been discussed before. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: What about Cincinnati and San Diego? You explained why you missed some out (eg St. Louis) but didn't explain Cincinnati (which has little competition, the horse and some tiny places) and San Diego also has little competition. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale, Cincinnati indeed should be indicated without state name IMHO; as for San Diego, though it appears on the AP's stylebook, in Italian and Spanish it might be read as "Saint Diego" thus I concede it should be disambiguated. At least I would have little opposition if it were disambiguated in San Diego, California. No point in indicating the state whereas the case is clear instead. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. As I stated before, I don't want to engage in a war of religion about the disambiguation. My thought is, though, "do not use disambiguation wherever it's not necessary".- I would suggest that you should include both of those in the nomination at the top (noting that you are also nominating Cincinnati but not San Diego). Agree only disambiguate when necessary is a good rule, see this essay for more explanation. Unfortunately many US users have tried to make it a religion that every US city must include the state even when unnecessary (eg Hodgenville). However Cleveland is a bit different because it is clearly ambiguous and not the undisputed primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Read. As I said, it's fine for me to write Hodgenville, (BTW where is?). I only asked for those cities that clearly and obviously don't need disambiguation (Boston, Massachusetts? Nobody would say that), and, to make sure it was not an original research, I pointed to the AP's stylebook. Also, I read w:WP:PRECISION too, especially where it states "adding the state name is in deference to common name, not disambiguation". Ok. Thus, if the criterium is the common name AP's stylebook says that i.e. Atlanta or Seattle do not need state name. If the criterium is disambiguation a secondary topic should be widespread at least at a comparable scale with the primary topic. That said, I guess that we shold start creating a body of policies on Commons instead of always referring to en.wiki, because Commons is an international project and not limited to the English-speaking world.
- The general consensus appears to be that categories primary topic standards should be higher (so all the other Clevelands might be enough to keep that one bout I don't think so for Cincinnati). I also appears that we often follow the names of the relevant language, in the case of Hodgenville and Boston is EN. I agree that following the AP's stylebook and looking at w:WP:PRECISION was a good idea, in general disambiguation isn't used to tell you what its about but only to distinguish, as noted in the essay its difficult to know how much detain to use, for you for example "Hodgenville, Kentucky, United States" would probably be more recognizable to you (see w:Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington?) as you point out you aren't from the US. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: - Honolulu is invariably called just "Honolulu" not "Honolulu, Hawaii", so there is less impact by having it at the base name - those few looking for it from internal searches will look for "Honolulu" most of the time. With a category redirect, there is always some pain, but it should be used in a way that minimises it. Your above comment is definitely TL;DR. I'm not even sure what your position is here (which categories do you support moving, which do you oppose?)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- The point is that because almost every USPLACE category is at Pacename, Statename, people might well expect Honolulu to. Do you expect that the average person who is reading Commons will know 1, the APS style and 2, what categories Wikipedia and us have decided to disambiguate (for example why not Raleigh). No the point about precision needed explaining. I would suggest that your recommendation of only moving over the redirects seems sensible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: - Honolulu is invariably called just "Honolulu" not "Honolulu, Hawaii", so there is less impact by having it at the base name - those few looking for it from internal searches will look for "Honolulu" most of the time. With a category redirect, there is always some pain, but it should be used in a way that minimises it. Your above comment is definitely TL;DR. I'm not even sure what your position is here (which categories do you support moving, which do you oppose?)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- The general consensus appears to be that categories primary topic standards should be higher (so all the other Clevelands might be enough to keep that one bout I don't think so for Cincinnati). I also appears that we often follow the names of the relevant language, in the case of Hodgenville and Boston is EN. I agree that following the AP's stylebook and looking at w:WP:PRECISION was a good idea, in general disambiguation isn't used to tell you what its about but only to distinguish, as noted in the essay its difficult to know how much detain to use, for you for example "Hodgenville, Kentucky, United States" would probably be more recognizable to you (see w:Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington?) as you point out you aren't from the US. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Read. As I said, it's fine for me to write Hodgenville, (BTW where is?). I only asked for those cities that clearly and obviously don't need disambiguation (Boston, Massachusetts? Nobody would say that), and, to make sure it was not an original research, I pointed to the AP's stylebook. Also, I read w:WP:PRECISION too, especially where it states "adding the state name is in deference to common name, not disambiguation". Ok. Thus, if the criterium is the common name AP's stylebook says that i.e. Atlanta or Seattle do not need state name. If the criterium is disambiguation a secondary topic should be widespread at least at a comparable scale with the primary topic. That said, I guess that we shold start creating a body of policies on Commons instead of always referring to en.wiki, because Commons is an international project and not limited to the English-speaking world.
- I would suggest that you should include both of those in the nomination at the top (noting that you are also nominating Cincinnati but not San Diego). Agree only disambiguate when necessary is a good rule, see this essay for more explanation. Unfortunately many US users have tried to make it a religion that every US city must include the state even when unnecessary (eg Hodgenville). However Cleveland is a bit different because it is clearly ambiguous and not the undisputed primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale, Cincinnati indeed should be indicated without state name IMHO; as for San Diego, though it appears on the AP's stylebook, in Italian and Spanish it might be read as "Saint Diego" thus I concede it should be disambiguated. At least I would have little opposition if it were disambiguated in San Diego, California. No point in indicating the state whereas the case is clear instead. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Move to close. The thing I have not yet seen in this entire discussion is, what problem does this move solve? Since that question remains unanswered and there's no consensus to do the move, let's close this out. I would do it myself except I participated. —howcheng {chat} 20:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think the status quo is not correct. The issue is the base name currently redirecting to the disambiguated title for Dallas, Honolulu, Miami and Milwaukee (ie Category:Honolulu -> Category:Honolulu, Hawaii). Either the base name needs conversion to a disambiguation, or the actual category should be moved there. There are two problems from the current set up:
- If the base redirects there anyway then there isn't a conflict worth mentioning. Why propagate the state down the category tree: Why have Museums in Honolulu, Hawaii when Museums in Honolulu is equally effective, and avoids clumsy category titles further down the tree.
- Secondly, the redirect, but not the actual category, turns up in a internal search for "Honolulu".
- I believe moving the actual content category to the base name is the better of the two alternatives as it handles these two issues more effectively. But, importantly, I prefer converting the base to a dab to leaving it alone.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Nilfanion: I forget, is there a technical reason why we use soft redirects? If we could put
#REDIRECT [[Category:Honolulu, Hawaii]]]at Category:Honolulu, that would solve the problem of users searching for "Honolulu" and having to do the extra click to get to the right place. —howcheng {chat} 21:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)- @Howcheng: There were historical reasons, see Commons:Only use category redirects where necessary. The biggest issue is concern about hard redirected categories being added, the files placed there and not moved along. I'm not sure if that's still true. RussBot would change any attempted hard redirect to a soft one, so it would need recoding first. I know R'n'B is reluctant to change the coding for RussBot without a clear consensus. If a hard redirect was possible I'd agree that would help Honolulu searchers.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that was what I was suggesting above, category redirects should work like "normal" redirects since most categories are like articles on Wikipedia. If pages were places in redirect categories I can't see why I bot couldn't still fix this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- The underlying problem is probably still there. {{Category redirect}} allows detection of files (via Category:Non-empty category redirects), but a hard redirect doesn't give that option. That means detection may still be a real problem, and only a bot-op can really say if that can be solved (by finding an alternative method). Pages linking to a redirect = harmless. Files listed on a redirect = harmful.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Why couldn't we just change the way the software works so that Category:Honolulu could still be redirected but the files places would still show up in Category:Non-empty category redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's a good question - but you aren't going to get an answer here. For this discussion, we just have to accept that's how things are.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Why couldn't we just change the way the software works so that Category:Honolulu could still be redirected but the files places would still show up in Category:Non-empty category redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- The underlying problem is probably still there. {{Category redirect}} allows detection of files (via Category:Non-empty category redirects), but a hard redirect doesn't give that option. That means detection may still be a real problem, and only a bot-op can really say if that can be solved (by finding an alternative method). Pages linking to a redirect = harmless. Files listed on a redirect = harmful.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that was what I was suggesting above, category redirects should work like "normal" redirects since most categories are like articles on Wikipedia. If pages were places in redirect categories I can't see why I bot couldn't still fix this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: There were historical reasons, see Commons:Only use category redirects where necessary. The biggest issue is concern about hard redirected categories being added, the files placed there and not moved along. I'm not sure if that's still true. RussBot would change any attempted hard redirect to a soft one, so it would need recoding first. I know R'n'B is reluctant to change the coding for RussBot without a clear consensus. If a hard redirect was possible I'd agree that would help Honolulu searchers.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Nilfanion: I forget, is there a technical reason why we use soft redirects? If we could put
- Since I was mentioned above, let me just comment on the hard vs. soft redirect question. The problem with hard redirects is that some user will mark one file with Category:Honolulu, and another user will mark another file with Category:Honolulu, Hawaii. If the first one redirects to the second one, and a reader navigates to Category:Honolulu, they will be automatically redirected to Category:Honolulu, Hawaii but they will only see the files listed that have been marked with the second category, not those that were incorrectly marked with the first one. However, there is a work-around. You can set up Category:Honolulu with both hard and soft redirects (hard redirect on the first line, soft one on the second line); that way, the bot will identify it as a category redirect and move files to the correct target, but users who navigate to the category description page will still be redirected automatically. --R'n'B (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- R'n'B, thanks for that - it makes sense to me. However, we shouldn't be doing this as a case-by-case workaround but have this entrenched as standard practice. Could we change {{Category redirect}} to function as a hard redirect? Would just adding #REDIRECT to the template work? If not, what would happen if #REDIRECT was added before the {{Category redirect}}?
- I'd suggest a tweak to RussBot is needed - converting a new redirect to hard+ssoft instead of soft only. There's also a one-off bot run to convert the existing soft to hard. That is if its safe? It need might need some testing first.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- As suggested above, I'd need a clear consensus to do something like that, and that's not going to arise from a CFD discussion on a single category. Anyway, I've done some testing, and although the bot handles hard redirects OK, and Hot-Cat does as well, there is a problem with Cat-a-Lot. Basically, if you use Cat-a-Lot to move (or copy) a page to a soft-redirected category, the tool will automatically bypass the redirect; but it will not do that if a hard redirect is present. --R'n'B (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- In the current situation (unless there is consensus to keep the state on all US cities), Cleveland (currently a DAB)
Weak oppose because of the county, Dallas Support, (currently a redirect) biggest competitor is probably Dallas, Georgia, Denver (currently a DAB) Support others are only a few thousand at most, Honolulu (currently a redirect) Support not much else outside Hawaii, Miami (currently a redirect) Support largest is Miami, Oklahoma, there are many songs/albums but are they likely/have long-term significance?, Milwaukee (currently a redirect) Support as there isn't much outside Wisconsin, Cincinnati (currently a redirect) support as there aren't many other significant uses. I would also Support Boston>Boston, Massachusetts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC) In the comments above Nilfanion has made a good point that the ones on the AP 30 may be titled without the state not are titled without the state as you said Blackcat, "If the criterium is disambiguation a secondary topic should be widespread at least at a comparable scale with the primary topic" then the county for Cleveland and Lincolnshire for Boston might be (I am ignoring the band as it is in the MA cat tree). As noted the guideline is mainly for the US so doesn't take into account other places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) - Comment What about putting Category:Colorado Springs, Colorado at Category:Colorado Springs? This discussion is taking place over at w:Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal to eliminate comma-state from unambiguous U.S. state capitals.. But why is it logical to Boston or Cleveland without the state which are ambiguous and the longer title looks natural. But Colorado Springs with the state which is unambiguous and unnatural. In any case Cleveland is already a DAB because it is ambiguous, just like Brighton and Norfolk. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Move to close (3rd time)
[edit]It's been two years since the last time I proposed this discussion be closed and we are nowhere near reaching any consensus. This horse ain't getting any deader. —howcheng {chat} 17:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support close as no consensus. I think it's better to have each one suggested separately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree we don't have consensus to rename the ones where a DAB at the base name already exists but what about the likes of Category:Dallas where it redirects to Category:Dallas, Texas and Category:Dallas (disambiguation) exists, as Nilfanion has noted these should either be moved as proposed or the DAB should instead be at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think that's further reason to close with no consensus and separate them. Some are easy to figure, others more difficult and with the very few people who comment here, expecting them to analyze everything suggested at one time will lead to many fewer opinions and thus less consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes that's probably a good idea, close those (like Cleveland) that have a DAB at the base name as not moved or no consensus and those (like Dallas) as no consensus without prejudice against speedily renominating with a CFD only consisting of those. I agree this needs closing since there's clearly consensus against this proposal. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's further reason to close with no consensus and separate them. Some are easy to figure, others more difficult and with the very few people who comment here, expecting them to analyze everything suggested at one time will lead to many fewer opinions and thus less consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree we don't have consensus to rename the ones where a DAB at the base name already exists but what about the likes of Category:Dallas where it redirects to Category:Dallas, Texas and Category:Dallas (disambiguation) exists, as Nilfanion has noted these should either be moved as proposed or the DAB should instead be at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose the initial proposal (only just seeing this via request for closure on COM:AN), and generally oppose anything which makes categories less predictable or standardized and creates more opportunity for confusion (due to other subjects with the same name). These factors should always trump arguments based just on external organizational preferences or word economy IMO. — Rhododendrites talk | 17:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just a note but someone decided to boldly move all the Milwaukee stuff to Milwaukee, Wisconsin so I don't know if that's now moot or arguable with all the opposition here. Can we please close this so we can discuss these individually before edit wars break out? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
No consensus. Yes, I know I participated in this discussion but we're nearing the 5-year mark and it's clear that this isn't going anywhere. —howcheng {chat} 22:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
This category and all the categories under it are for paintings and photos combined. I don't think the two media should be explicitly mixed like that, especially since it makes the parent cats inaccurate and more complicated. I think the photos should be moved to categories that aren't medium-specific, and the categories should be renamed to be for paintings only. An alternative would be to rename the categories to something like "Buildings in Spain in the 20th century". Auntof6 (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think moving to Category:Buildings in Spain in the 20th century makes sense. Also, Category:Paintings of buildings in Spain currently redirects to a large, complex but mostly barren category tree under Category:Paintings of buildings in Spain by century. I'd suggest upmerging all those categories to just Category:Paintings of buildings in Spain. The only large category in the tree is Category:19th century paintings of buildings in Granada, which is mostly filled with images of engravings not paintings. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Bad category. Delete.--JMCC1 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @JMCC1: What has happened here? Did you empty this category and others, and nominate others for speedy deletion, instead of participating in the discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill. I have only changed his name.
- 20th century paintings ... by 20th-century paintings ...
- see Category: 20th-century paintings of buildings in Spain (There are only paintings)
- Also its author is missing. See [This account is currently blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vvven]
--JMCC1 (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, can we get rid of this category? It is not usable no matter how we change the name. We don't cohort paintings and photographs together, there is no way we can make this a subcategory of any available parent category, e.g. Category:20th-century paintings of buildings in Spain, and we wouldn't use this as a redirect. Thx Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
See also: Category talk:Mountain puzzle. Category tree should be merged to Category:Unidentified mountains. No need for two parallel category trees. We have Commons:Mountain puzzle to explain. 178.27.109.88 15:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep Same move was requested already in 2009 [2] and declined (talk). This always was intended to be a flat category, but @Reykholt: created this parallel tree structure for that. This category serves as a landing page for a game we play on German WP. There is also a lengthy description on the category page describing the game and its rules. I would like to go back to a flat game category and do the unidentified stuff in parallel. My keep is weak. And other guys and gals might as well tackle the unidentified mountains. The difference between unidentified and mountain puzzle is that in some cases unidentified will be resolved against some unprecise information like the point of view or just the mountain range, which helps but is not enough to solve the puzzle. Not to mention cases where the mountain is just background. Thus even images with a sound description might get the puzzle category to find additional information. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Herzi Pinki: That seems fairly reasonable. Could you add something explaining the distinction from Category:Unidentified mountains in the Category:Mountain puzzle category description? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- of course I can do that. Just waiting another few days for additional opinions. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Herzi Pinki: That seems fairly reasonable. Could you add something explaining the distinction from Category:Unidentified mountains in the Category:Mountain puzzle category description? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't care about the "top category" but categories like Category:Mountain puzzle of Vorarlberg should be Category:Unidentified mountains of Vorarlberg and so on. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 21:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Thgoiter: thanks for your point. Shall we keep a flat category of all unidentified mountains (to browse and find known mountains by visual impression), or shall we move all images to the unidentified branches and make the "top category" just an empty landing page (and loose browsing in the large). I stated my opinion above, but only with weak keep. Assigning unidentified mountains to regions is a risky strategy although, the recategorizations made by @Reykholt: e.g. partly introduced wrong assignments. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Browsing in the large" is possible by using FastCCI.
- Keeping Category:Mountain puzzle as a "collector" is OK for me. I just don't see the need of having inconsistences in the category trees, meaning some categories start with "Mountain puzzle...", some with "Unidentified mountains...". --тнояsтеn ⇔ 08:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- That was not the point. FastCCI does btw not allow to browse a category tree as a flat category e.g. in the slideshow app. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I will make the Mountain puzzle description more clear acc. to the statement above. Anybody who wants to merge the two trees is asked to do so, either by adding the flat Category:Mountain puzzle as before, or by not keeping it. No strong opinion on that. Of course, after that the category subtrees of Category:Mountain puzzle should be deleted. Identifying the stuff is the important thing. So may I ask everybody to contribute … Here is the current list of incriminated categories:
- Mountain puzzle Bavarian Alps
- Mountain puzzle Iceland
- Mountain puzzle Kamchatka
- Mountain puzzle Salzburg (state)
- Mountain puzzle South Tyrol
- Mountain puzzle Tibet
- Mountain puzzle Tyrol (state)
- Mountain puzzle USA
- Mountain puzzle in the Alps of France
- Mountain puzzle of Styria
- Mountain puzzle of Vorarlberg
regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Herzi Pinki, Thgoiter, and Reykholt: what is situation here? This mountain puzzle stuff to be merged to "Unidentified mountains" to be consistent with Commons system?--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- How much can you @Estopedist1: contribute and how much are you willing to solve the puzzles? There is no sense in moving around the unknown, the unidentified. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Herzi Pinki, Thgoiter, and Reykholt: it is pretty obvious that Commons:Mountain puzzle is extinct (last edit 2010) and doesn't fit into Commons system. These categories to be renamed (with category suppression):
- Category:Mountain puzzle
- Category:Mountain puzzle Bavarian Alps
- Category:Mountain puzzle Iceland
- Category:Mountain puzzle Kamchatka
- Category:Mountain puzzle Salzburg (state)
- Category:Mountain puzzle South Tyrol
- Category:Mountain puzzle Tibet
- Category:Mountain puzzle Tyrol (state)
- Category:Mountain puzzle USA
- Category:Mountain puzzle in the Alps of France
- Category:Mountain puzzle of Styria
- Category:Mountain puzzle of Vorarlberg
After renaming we can close this CFD. Objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Solve a dozen of the puzzles and then go ahead. :-) best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that they aren't being solved only reinforces the idea that the categories should be renamed. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I will not rename. Or am I expected to rename? I did not create these subcategories, I do not fill those subcategories, I do not need these categories and when I remove an image by identifying the mountain, nobody will take notice (removing from a cat will not show up in related changes, adding to a subcat will not show as last edit on a cat). I had some resolving edits in October: e.g. [3], [4]
What is the best strategy to get objects identified? To optimize processes? To find co-workers? To make more progress? To get rid of sloppy described images? The same with Category:Artwork by unknown artists in Austria. Moving categories around will not do that. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- I will not rename. Or am I expected to rename? I did not create these subcategories, I do not fill those subcategories, I do not need these categories and when I remove an image by identifying the mountain, nobody will take notice (removing from a cat will not show up in related changes, adding to a subcat will not show as last edit on a cat). I had some resolving edits in October: e.g. [3], [4]
- The fact that they aren't being solved only reinforces the idea that the categories should be renamed. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Strassen_-_Pfarrkirche_hl_Jakobus_der_%C3%84ltere.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Old_church_in_sunlight_(27832125425).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
Hi @Estopedist1: what is the situation here? Who is meant with we? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I've left Category:Mountain puzzle alone, but moved the subcategories to "unidentified mountains in x" Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
There are so few entries in any given subcat here, I don't think we need this cat or its subcats. Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there are probably lots of these: Category:Amy Winehouse by year. At least they aren't subdivided by month and year (yet)... =( - Themightyquill (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think there's an epidemic of not wanting to leave individual files in higher-level categories. I've seen it with subcatting by time like this, and I've seen it with unidentified-subject/location and to-be-categorized files. Files of Paris that need to be categorized further are tucked away in a subcat under the Paris WikiProject -- who would think to look for them there? I don't think it's helpful to move things into categories like this just because we can. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is it such a complicated issue not to have been closed for more than a year? --E4024 (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep. This discussion can be closed. Mostly populated categories and every year have good potential to grow. In general, I agree with user:Auntof6 that "there's an epidemic of not wanting to leave individual files in higher-level categories"--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept The category now has 16 multiple-use subcategories. GeorgHH • talk 19:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Can be deleted since no interwiki bots are active any more because of Wikidata. Steak (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Are there bots that remove interwiki links? Many of our categories still have them. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The category contains bots which used to add interwiki links. If there are bots which remove them, there would be no need to collect them in a category. Steak (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Steak and Themightyquill: the nominated category seems redundant. Do we delete this category or try to retain it somehow (eg we have category:Commons deprecated)?--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine to delete, but there's still a bot in the category. emijrp can we remove Emijrpbot? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. emijrp (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Isn't Bogies (without the of rail vehicles) unambigous enough? FDMS 4 16:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe not. See en:Bogie (disambiguation) and en:Bogey for other things this could be. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: None of the ones with the ie spelling have a plural form, spelling variations shouldn't necessitate such a disambig either … FDMS 4 17:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- The Jack in the green meaning has a plural form: it's used in the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: None of the ones with the ie spelling have a plural form, spelling variations shouldn't necessitate such a disambig either … FDMS 4 17:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @FDMS4 and Auntof6: Any further ideas? At the moment, Category:Bogies is missing. The nominated category name is not in the line with enwiki en:bogie (to be in the line with, the category name should be "Bogies" or "Bogies (transport)"). I am neutral about the disambiguation question--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Rename to "Diesel locomotives by transmission type", or similar. "by type" is a reasonabe category, but it would imply most strongly a division into functional groups, such as passenger or heavy freight locos. The distinction by transmission type is important, but warrants its own and more specific name. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Makes sense to me. "by transmission type" would be much clearer. Incidentally, Andy Dingley, of the sub-categories, only Category:Diesel-hydraulic locomotives has any parent categories other than this one. Should they all be in Category:Diesel-powered land vehicles? Or is there some other way to connect each of them more broadly to the category tree? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- "land vehicles" is far too broad. This "by type" should be direct children of "diesel locomotives", and its children (-hydraulic, -electric) don't need to be children of much else, as most is implicit. This would be the parent group for "internal combustion engined railway locomotive vehicles" (including petrol-engined, railcars etc, and not explicitly stating the railway constraint". But I see the usefulness of that as a necessary and obvious grouping, kept to a single category, even if stretched beyond its literal meaning from the title to be a better solution than a vast hierarchy upwards through Category:Diesel-powered rolling stock etc. Particularly as locomotive vs. railcars is so orthogonal to petrol vs diesel, and thus never going to fit cleanly into MediaWiki's tree structure. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Specific topic, but I just mention that the category name <by transmission type> would be unique in Commons database. So maybe we cling to <by type> or a new alternative?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- "category name <by transmission type> would be unique in Commons database. "
- And why would that be a problem? Are we limited in how we describe content by what is most convenient for the WP servers, rather than what best describes the important issues within that topic? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there an important difference between Category:Files (engineering) and its parent category, Category:Files and rasps that I'm not seeing? The former links to wikipedia categories about the act of filing, while the latter to wikipedia categories about the tool used, but the content here is identical as far as I can see. I propose deleting this category and moving content to Category:Files and rasps. Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Just maybe the difference might be that the sub-category contains files, whilst the supercategory contains both files and rasps. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps a move to Category:Files (hand tool) is needed, at the very least? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think files, as it is, is fine (and a few of them aren't hand tools). If the rasps are in a category above that's a fine distinction, but it is a real one. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps a move to Category:Files (hand tool) is needed, at the very least? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I just don't think "(engineering)" is a good disambiguation. Category:Files (tools) would be better if they aren't all hand tools. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hand files might be best, as the clearest. Any machine files can stay in the parent at Files and rasps Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Hand files per discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Any reason why Category:Disc jockeys by country is filled almost entirely with Category:Deejays from X ? Which is it? Themightyquill (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Flagging related categories of Category:Hip hop deejays, Category:DJs (musician), Category:Disc jockeys, Category:Radio disc jockeys, Category:Club DJs, Category:Selectors (Jamaican) and Category:Selectors (Jamaican) to encourage more input. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- More than 2 and half years ago I asked for advice to Jim Woodward and disc jockeys seemed to be amongst the most appropriated names. Deejay appeared to be the less appropriate instead. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think the usual practice is to spell things out, so I favor "disc jockeys". --Auntof6 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- An exception could be certainly made for Category:Deejays from Jamaica because reggae/dancehall deejays are not, despite the name, disc jockeys (while Category:Selectors (Jamaican) are disc jockeys.)
- But I wonder, actually, if it even makes sense to lump all disc jockeys together by country. Why should Category:DJ Jazzy Jeff (a hiphop dj) be in the same category (Category:Deejays from the United States) as Category:Alan White (disc jockey) (a radio disc jockey)? Perhaps we could subdivide by genre first at Category:Disc jockeys (e.g. Category:Hip hop deejays, Category:Hip hop deejays from the United States)? It could be that a few rare DJs perform multiple roles, but they could easily be in Category:Hip hop deejays from the United States, Category:Radio disc jockeys from the United States and Category:Club DJs from the United states without a problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- What is the difference? Is it that one type performs (operating a turntable to get musical effects such as scratching -- see Category:DJing) and the other chooses music to play (such as on the radio or at events)? It would be good to distinguish those. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Something like that, I guess. Hiphop/club DJs are (part of) a musical performance and require some degree of technical skill (whether mixing or scratching). Both may well create and publish their own music or music collections. A radio disc jockey, mostly provides commentary when the music is not playing, and requires no technical skill besides hitting play? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I take it you've never been a radio DJ. Slip-cueing, cross-fading, and and even some mixing (not to mention phasing) come straight out of radio DJ'ing in the vinyl era (I speak from experience). It's true that scratching was an invention of club DJs in the 1970s. But that's really where DJ'ing as live performance -- at least outside of Jamaica -- begins to diverge at all from DJ'ing for radio. - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Something like that, I guess. Hiphop/club DJs are (part of) a musical performance and require some degree of technical skill (whether mixing or scratching). Both may well create and publish their own music or music collections. A radio disc jockey, mostly provides commentary when the music is not playing, and requires no technical skill besides hitting play? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- What is the difference? Is it that one type performs (operating a turntable to get musical effects such as scratching -- see Category:DJing) and the other chooses music to play (such as on the radio or at events)? It would be good to distinguish those. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Well, obviously my description was exaggerated to draw a clear distinction, but even before the 1970s, I'm skeptical that radio DJs gained prominence for their cross-fading abilities. I certainly don't recall it being mentioned as one of Casey Kasem's notable qualities. =) As far as I can see, technical skills isn't mentioned at all in this list of famous American radio djs. Correct me if I'm wrong though, if you're speaking from experience - I'm not sure it's relevant to this CfD, but I'm interested. - Themightyquill (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Casey Kasem pretty much literally "phoned it in". He's record his stuff without even playing the records & someone else would actually play the records alternated with his talking. (I'm sure when he was young he did more, but any time after about 1980, he wasn't really even playing records.
- I did a college FM show for a few years in the early-to-mid-1970s (WESU), and I would say that I used some of the skills that a few years later became known as turntablism, and that I saw nearly all of the tried except scratching, which hadn't caught on yet. I was never quite at the high end of these skills, but I kept track of BPMs to make smooth transitions, snuck fragments of one song into the midst of another on the other turntable, etc. I watched more skillful colleagues do things like queue up two copies of the same track & play them slightly out of phase for effect (using an occasional tap of the finger to keep them just so and account for slightly different turntable speeds). I'm not sure I ever actually saw someone extend a break by jumping from one record to another, but I suspect that's partly because what we were doing wasn't dance-oriented. We were more likely to sneak in a fragment of a spoken work disc or something percussive and atonal. But I certainly remember having to specifically go to something that wasn't on vinyl (usually a "cart[ridge]", this weird tape loop thing, sometimes just a cassette) because I'd been doing something that actively used both turntables and I needed 30 seconds to cue up the next record. Of course, with the death of freeform radio around that time, except for a few dance-oriented specialty shows this pretty much disappeared from the radio right as it began to get big in the clubs.
- I'm not sure how much it affects our categorization, other than to say that the radio and club DJ skill sets were pretty much the same from the 1940s through mid-1970s -- above all, an encyclopedic knowledge of at least some genres of music -- and only after that does the distinction become anything like as clear as it is now. - Jmabel ! talk 02:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Here is at least one example of a present-day radio program where the skills are pretty much identical to those of a club DJ. - Jmabel ! talk 02:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Late night gatecrashing. What is it all about, is it radio DJs of the past (what's a radio, Mom?) or nightclub DJs of today? What is it doing in category:Musicians by country by genre? Retired electrician (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Done removed--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Can we follow the enwiki (except that we use Disc jockey instead of DJ) en:Category:DJs and is subcategories? Enwiki has also en:Category:Jamaican DJs (Commons equivalent Category:Disk jockeys from Jamaica)--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment In my eyes, it seems strange thing that merging several sub-categories into one generic category, in general. On the current issue, i.e. the sub-categorization of "Category:Disc jockeys by country", it seems better to separate each Disc jockey subcategories (for example: Category:Club DJs, Category:Radio disc jockeys, etc) with "by country" subcategories (for example: Category:Club DJs from the United States, Category:Radio disc jockeys from the United States, etc., and unknown disk jockeys are left on Category:Disc jockeys from the United States). Is there any problem ? --Clusternote (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC) P.S. as for the Reggae DJs/Selectors issue, it is not the matter of country but the matter of music genre (or type of performance unit, i.e. Reggae-style sound system). So we can sub-categorize these as Category:Reggae DJs from the United States / Category:Reggae selectors from the United States. And also Hip-hop MC (Master of celemony) derived from Reggae DJs may be sub-category of Reggae DJs.
Not done: categorisation has well moved on since this discussion was opened. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)