Sorry. I know I sometimes open many cats for discussion. This is why I'm trying to stop myself these days on this area, but it's like an addiction: Can someone please explain me what is the sense in having this cat and its two children? There are also similars on tennis. I think we could reduce the number of all these cats and subcats which would make it easier to find younger people running after a ball. OTOH "football ball boys" is too difficult to pronounce; reminds me of balls (or people) "associated with association" football. E4024 (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for any discussion. As soon as such a (maintenance-)category is empty / has been emptied, just insert {{Speedydelete|1=Category is empty}} and the category will be deleted usually within a few hours. --Archie02 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The category description addresses this: "Gérôme painted six slave-market scenes set in either ancient Rome or 19th-century Istanbul. The subject provided him with an opportunity to depict facial expressions and to undertake figurative studies of sensual beauty. He painted another view of the same event--Slave Market in Rome (St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum)--in which the viewer looks over the heads of the spectators towards the slave." - Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This category name is highly confusing in that the word commonly meaning royalty. This should be disambiguated and it contains a lot of incorrect images. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know my English sucks but still believe this cat title should be changed (corrected). It could at least use a hyphen. E4024 (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another wrong categorization with unnecessary capitalization. I will move the files to their correct cats and get this deleted. E4024 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Old books about medicine" is not the same as (all) "Books about medicine". The cat for antiquated books should be a sub-cat of all books. Books by year is nice if you know the year, but not when you don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cat includes things that aren't books, but other than that, I've no particular objection. We should have at least a guess at a century for nearly everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category that shouldn't have content (force categorization superseeded by template auto-categorization that would not add any media here) IJReid (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have just realized that the criterion SD-G1 is applicable in this situation, so this discussion can be closed and I will add the Speedy-Delete tag instead. IJReid (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, most of the categories in Category:Tram transport in Switzerland by city are inaccurate, because the tram networks always goes far away out of the city, in the corresponding Swiss cantons. And sometimes further e.g. in France (Basel, soon also in Geneva). OR, do we expect the name of the city means "tramway network centered in the city of xxx"? On another side, we have already some categories aligned on the cantons, e.g. Category:Transport in Switzerland by canton. -- MHM (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’d say that yes, we do «expect the name of the city means "tramway network centered in the city of xxx"», at least in most applicable cases. (Some exceptions: Category:Coastal tram, Belgium, Category:Trams in Upper Silesian urban area, et&nbs;c.) Of course, specific implementations should be informed by local specificities. I don’t know the CH situation well, but it stands to reason that while considering Geneve-city and Geneve-canton to be the same in practical terms, larger cantons such as Bern or Zürich might not gain from that same treatment. -- Tuválkin✉✇17:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember, but when I created the category last year, I was only aware of a mountain of that name in Azad Kashmir Pakistan. However, there is little information about that mountain...
Guess we should move the category to Category:Hari Parbat, Shounter Valley and put all those mountain pictures there and have all other at "..., Srinagar".
Ok, I moved it to Category:Hari Parbat, AJK. AJK is the official abbreviation for the Pakistan Region Azad Kashmir. en:Hari Parbat covers the "mountain" (or hill) in Srinagar, India, with the temples and stuff on it. All other interwikis refer to this one, too. I had to edit it on wikidata by hand...
@Rupert Pupkin: I'm not a huge fan of acronyms in category names, but whatever. To create a disambiguation page, just type out the different options and add {{Disambig}} to the bottom, as I've done at Category:Hari Parbat.
A colleague of ours insists in opening cats with wrong capitalization. I could move it; but I believe it's better to discuss it here, that may help them to stop doing this. E4024 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that these are wrongly capitalized. The first word in each cat name is capitalized, as are any proper nouns. Everything else is all lower case. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion needed. Moved to Category:Ancient Egyptian beer industry. @E4024: Nominating categories that are obviously mispelled or with incorrect grammar for discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Please make the changes, or, if you are unsure, simply ask someone to double check. Rather than assuming that someone "insists" on doing something wrong, please assume good faith. A wise person recently said, "sometimes please consider people ... who have learned English in school or language courses please." - Themightyquill (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I asked why you think the items in the Category:Films about former Muslims "[do] not include what we call "films"". The items that are currently in the category all refer to documentary films. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
E4024 You'll need to provide an answer if you actually want yor deletion request to be acted upon. If you don't really expect it to be deleted, you are wasting everyone's time. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nederlandse Leeuw, you don't have to thank me for (your) opening of Category:Films about religion and for adding (again, yourself) Category:Christmas films in there. Now we have two cats for films about religion, one, a classical, a must: "Christmas films", two "Films about former Muslims"... Former Muslims? Buddy, this is an oxymoron (something not related to oxen nor Moron Air Base, not even to the moron that writes these words :) but to the fact that former members of a religion are not any more members of that religion. Anyhow, indeed Christmas films are also generally not about Christians, but Jews and "former Jews", except the Roman Governor and his reckless infidel soldiers. (Well, of course there were no Christmas films back then, either. I watched a lot of these films and learned a few things.) In the end we cannot even say that Christ was a Christian, right? He "died" (sort of; sorry, believers) without knowing that he established a religion under the name Christianity. I'm trying to attract the attention to the fact that if we are so concerned about former... people, other people could think we have an agenda or something. Imagine, the only films about religion cat in Commons was about "former" Muslims until I opened another stupid CfD! Let's see how I will save face from this grave mistake of mine: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? Help! --E4024 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of that seems to be relevant to this CfD. I'm going to close unless you can explain your argument, preferably without further digressions, or "jokes". - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This category contained photos of artwork deleted because of no-Fop in France. It is now empty. It is to be deleted. Civa (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The one and only file there is under protection since many years (2010). I don't know if that may have helped the confusion (mine). --E4024 (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's just different transliterations of same name (Евгений == Eugene). Sure, only one category should left, but are there any agreement about Russian-to-English transliteration? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the majority of files are under "Yevgeny", I will boldly take the only file here to that cat and make this an RD; later Russian-speakers may discuss to find the best name. I entered here only to correct an anomaly, please discuss it without me if necessary. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was almost no participation at the CfD. Therefore I'm closing it as Done as I made it an RD. We can always change things if others disagree with me. --E4024 (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Highly limited, mostly if not entirely indirect contact. Tibet also had contact with Europe during the Renaissance and France had contact with China during the Ming Dynasty. That doesn't make it appropriate. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two illustrations in a book from Jehan de Mandeville, as well as two others in the Livre des merveilles. They are reproduced in Michael Taylor Le Tibet de Marco Polo à Alexandra-David-Néel, translation: Annie Saumont, Office du Livre, Fribourg / Payot, Paris 1985. German : (Mythos Tibet, translation: Karin Brown, Georg Westermann Verlag, Braunschweig 1988). For the book of Marco Polo, there is an illustration at "CHAPITRE XXXVI" here: [1] --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So as far as you know, the maximum potential for images in this category (as you define it) is likely 4? And none of these four images are currently here? I'm afraid this is a very weak argument to keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I do agree that the initial name "Middle Ages in Tibet" can not be kept. I know of 5 images of "Tibet during the Middle Ages". Do you agree that this later expression is appropriated for these 5 images ? If not, what expression would you suggest? What about "Tibet in medieval art" ? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyg728: You said "Image quality is low and blurry" but you have nominated a category for discussion, not an image for deletion. Was this an accident? Not all the images in this category of of poor quality. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A google search suggests fairly similar numbers for either transliteration, though slightly higher numbers (239:180) for a Valera Pesin from Belarus. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Сам художник позиционирует себя именно как Валеру, а не Валерия. Посмотрите его галерею на фэйсбуке, она называется Valera Pesin gallery. The artist himself positions himself exactly as Valera, and not Valery. Look at his gallery on facebook, it's called Valera Pesin gallery. --Tatiana Markina 07:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
All the other national "waiters" cats are made with "from", I don't know why. Indeed if you go to any country which receives many tourists, you see that generally the waiters are not from that country, but from countries that give youth emigration to those countries. For instance, in Spain many waiters are either from Latin America or from Romania; in Turkey, every passing day we have more waiters from Central Asian countries, at present they generally work as "komi" - assistant to the "real" waiter- but soon will become professional waiters. I believe "waiters in" could be better than "of" or "from"; hoping that no-one will come to ask me what will happen with a Spanish waiter who has gone to Morocco for vacations... E4024 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody tell me how this cat is categorized? Because cyberwarfare is not per se esnionage as there exits also destructiv cyberwarfare technology. Sanandros (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I'd like to oriantate on the de wep de:Cyberkrieg as usually in de wp the categorization is done with more care as on en wp. But in this case I'm also not so much agreeing with the de wp categorization. So I'd suggest Category:Warfare by type and Category:Internet. But I think we have currently here also a lot of overcat but unfortunately I can't create a tree with vcat right now.--Sanandros (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Firstly, from what I see, the Napoleonic Wars only lasted from 1803 to 1815 (though I'm no expert). Second, these aren't clearly images of campaigns either. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While waiters are "from" in national cats, waitresses are "of". Sorry, I cannot bring every individual country cat here. E4024 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this cat is necessary, with the single and irrelevant file in it, therefore propose its deletion. (In case we have better files to add into this cat, then we should do it.) E4024 (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I can't imagine there would be much additional content to add in the future. "Foreign policy" doesn't have so many photo
For that matter, what's a wall basement, as indicated in the description of the only file here? Maybe it's supposed to mean the base of the wall? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rename the cat and make this page a disambiguation page. I suppose we should verify that the things currently on this page are for the Tasmanian place. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support But should be the 2nd choice "Port Arthur, Tasmania" as there is also w:Port Arthur, South Australia and per w:WP:NCAUST. While this is a significant heritage site, it only has a population of 251, compared to 53,818 for Port Arthur, Texas and 324,773 for the Lüshunkou District. Also the one in Texas has slightly more images that the one in Tasmania. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with not having both and with picking "North America". We probably shouldn't have any categories referring to a geographic "America" because that's such an imprecise term. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have very few "Foods of" categories and also having "Food of", "Food products of", "Food industry" etc cats, these seem unnecessary. I was not going to open this discussion but was reverted, therefore we're here. E4024 (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I first uploading the image there were many "Foods of (country)" categories automatically suggested hence I have started the Foods of Mongolia category. Orgio89 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want Mongolian categories to be different than the great majority, I will wish you success and beg leave. I can help you only if you want help, if not, sorry. Have a good week-end. --E4024 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orgio89! Your mistake is quite reasonable when you saw all those other "Foods of..." categories. If you check, though, almost all of them simply redirect to "Food of..." categories. They're meant to help people looking for this content with the word "foods" instead of "food", but in this instance, they ended up confusing you. Moreover, Category:Food of Mongolia has existed since 2009, and there's obviously no need for both! But thanks for uploading images and for trying to categorize them appropriately. It's much appreciated. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that there are 135 categories finishing with "(Porto)" vs 5 with (Oporto). And there are 889 categories containing the name "Porto" vs 39 with the name "Oporto". It is a matter of standardization.--JotaCartas (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that there are 135 categories finishing with "(Porto)" vs 5 with (Oporto). And there are 889 categories containing the name "Porto" vs 39 with the name "Oporto". It is a matter of standardization.--JotaCartas (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
moved down so that the vote above is not misunderstood
I can add that there are 135 categories finishing with "(Porto)" vs 5 with (Oporto). And there are 889 categories containing the name "Porto" vs 39 with the name "Oporto". It is a matter of standardization.--JotaCartas (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to propose a general renaming of all instances of "Oporto" to "Porto", then do so, instead of sneaking individual renamings one by one. Especially if you’re argueing solely on the base of numbers. -- Tuválkin✉✇12:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply in kind: In Category:Praia there are many more items pertaining to Category:Beaches than to a city in Cape Verde — an example among many. Should we submit to this kind of tyranny of numbers, or should we discuss calmly what’s the best translation of the Portuguese toponym "Porto" into English? -- Tuválkin✉✇12:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Porto to match with category tree. Category:Praia has been a disambiguation page since January 2017, so that argument makes no sense. The category tree starts at Category:Porto. If you want to move it to Oporto, then you're welcome to start that discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can add that there are 135 categories finishing with "(Porto)" vs 5 with (Oporto). And there are 889 categories containing the name "Porto" vs 39 with the name "Oporto". It is a matter of standardization.--JotaCartas (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would draw a distinction between the Boc group itself and compounds containing the group. Boc-protected amines are tert-butyl carbamates but Boc2O, for example, is not – it doesn’t contain any nitrogen.
Keep. The hierarchy in most branches if the category tree is as follows:
Architecture (includes categories for architectural styles, architectural elements, structures, and more
Structures: includes categories for things that are constructed, such as brudges, monuments and memorials, and buildings
Buildings: includes categories for things like churches, temples, houses, shops, hotels, etc.
Why should this be different? Instead of eliminating these categories, populate them, and create them for other centuries. That would make it easier to find what you're looking for. Right now the "nth-century architecture" categories are a mix of different things (some of which are sorted together and some of which are not), and could use organization. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we'd have to create all the decade/year/country/city subcats right away just because we had the higher-level categories. There seem to be a fair number of users who like doing that work, so I'd bet they'd get created if needed. I do think we should create the high-level structure and building categories, though, and I'd volunteer to work on that. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We must have a cat for the island and others for the entities on it. We should do the same for the Island of Cyprus. --E4024 (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what moot means but we have quite a separation in Cyprus: UN Zone, Sovereign Bases Area, TRNC, and the southern part that continues to use the name of Republic of Cyprus. --E4024 (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; sometimes please consider people (like me) who have learned English in school or language courses please. --E4024 (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would appear to be another mirror of the English Wikipedia. It's easy for me to see now how concepts should not be Commons categories. Bigotry is a separate concept from all these. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is about an extremely short, uninteresting, street. The only notable building is Willem de Zwijgerkerk (Amsterdam), which has its entrance and formal and postal address at Olympiaweg (14), Amsterdam. Paulbe (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There’s also Acacia mitchellii: which is the correct spelling? The image in that cat has only one L in the filename, but if the species is named after someone called Mitchell, I wouldn‘t expect the last L to be dropped.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As we don't have a cat for "Arabic chicken" there is no need for this cat. Please, now we have only Category:Chicken dishes of Tunisia as a subcat here. Tomorrow someone will come and say "We are Zamazigs" etc and reject the "Arabic". Let us please classify cuisines only for countries and cities. Not "Arabic" etc. Arabic is a language. E4024 (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This meta category has amassed 77,326 subcategories and needs diffusion. Part of the problem is that for quite some time there have been several subcategories in Category:Aircraft by registration by type following the scheme of "Boeing 747 by registration" and the like, but people still keep adding both Category:Aircraft by registration and "Category:<Aircraft type> by registration" to the main categories where individual aircraft by registration are gathered. E.g. Category:EC-MLD (aircraft) is categorised both in "Category:Aircraft by registration" and "Category:Airbus A321 by registration". Contrary to COM:OVERCAT this seems to be the rule at aircraft categories rather than the exception. I am presenting this issue here because Ardfern suggested that it be discussed with Commons:WikiProject Aviation only. However, I don't think that local consensus can trump a Commons-wide policy, so exceptions need to be approved here. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a function (set) with 2 parameters - "Aircraft (by registration, by type)" have a superfunction (superset) with 1 parameter - "Aircraft (by registration)"?
That is how Wikimedia categories work. We define more specific categories the further we go down the category tree, and that means that more parameters come into play while the definition set out in a simple top category still remains valid for all elements further down the hierarchy. "Aircraft by registration" is for images where just the registration number is known. "Aircraft by registration by type" is a container for aircraft categories where the registration and the type is known, and "Category:Kawasaki C-1 by registration" and the like would be the next level. The problem, however, is that subcategories should only be part of one category level further up the direct line, and not be sorted into two related parent categories. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, what is a "category tree"? If it is a taxonomy , then we have: ROOT <- 1) SUBROOT1 (by A); 2) SUBROOT2 (by B); 3) SUBROOT3 (by A, by B). Examples: "Aircraft by parameters" <- 1) "Aircraft by registration"; 2) "Aircraft by type"; 3) "Aircraft by registration by type" --Fractaler (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't place an item into a category and its parent. For example, a black and white photo of the Eiffel Tower should be placed in Black and white photographs of the Eiffel Tower. It should not be placed in both that category and the Paris category at the same time.
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough when I started this discussion, but my main concern is not so much the way we may want to diffuse this category in the future but a massive case of overcategorisation right now. Contrary to the Commons policy on categories, there are probably hundreds of subcategories that are placed into a category and its parent. So my approach is to remove all those subcategories from Category:Aircraft by registration that have already been sorted into a category "by registration by type". This is the commonly accepted standard to solve the issue, but it has been challenged in this case and needs discussion. De728631 (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aircraft by registration, however, may very well contain registration categories like "Category:D-ECAB" if the aircraft type is unknown. Once the type becomes known, the registration category should be placed into "<Aircraft type> by registration" instead. De728631 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ignore the application of set theory above (IMO it isn't an appropriate model for Commons), as abstract theory is unlikely to be informative to a specific problem.
I will stick to practical concerns. Say I have a photo of the plane with registration G-BOAC. I don't have a clue what sort of plane that is, but if I create its category I can place it in Category:Aircraft by registration based on what I do know. Alternatively, imagine I am seeking images of G-BOAC. I know its registration, so its reasonable to use Category:Aircraft by registration to try to locate it. If its directly in that category, I can find it. If its buried in a "by type" subcategory I cannot find it, as I do not have that information. In both cases, having the individual plane's category in Category:Aircraft by registration is helpful. Removing it from that category is harmful.
To put this a different way, "I want a plane with registration G-BOAC" is not sensibly narrowed down by instead saying "I want a Concorde with registration G-BOAC". In contrast "I want a Concorde" is sensibly refined with "I want a Concorde with registration G-BOAC". That suggests Category:Aircraft by registration by type should be a subcat of "by type" but not "by registration".--Nilfanion (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for a specific category G-BOAC, your first start should be the search field anyway. It will guide you directly to the desired category without you having to browse the category tree. It is the fastest solution for "I want a plane with registration G-BOAC", so a direct entry in Category:Aircraft by registration is therefore not even necessary. Also, Category:Aircraft by registration by type includes the "registration" element, so the question would still arise why it is not linked back to Category:Aircraft by registration. Per our category policy, "each category should itself be in more general categories, forming a hierarchical structure." The hierarchical structure would be broken if Category:Aircraft by registration was not involved. Pinging @Joshbaumgartner: who created "by registration by type" as he might want to comment here too. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What I'm trying to demonstrate is that navigation in the category realm works both ways, not just top-down. So if I want to browse back from G-BOAC via "Concorde by registration" and further up the tree, I should be able to arrive at "Aircraft by registration" as well. De728631 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With bottom-up navigation, you can get to Aircraft by registration by some obvious logical route, no matter how its categorised. That is not true for top-down navigation unless it is directly in by registration. Breaking registrations down by type is simply NOT helpful for navigation. Outright deletion of by registration by type is preferable to have it messing up the utility of the by regisration category.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are contradicting yourself. A few paragraphs further up, you suggested that "Category:Aircraft by registration by type should be a subcat of 'by type'" rather than by registration while you are now outright opposed to "Breaking registrations down by type"? De728631 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh.. '"by registration by type" should be a subcat of "by type" rather than "by registration"' is consistent with 'don't break registrations down by type'? The latter statement is stronger, but doesn't contradict the former. If you already know the registration, adding in the type of aircraft doesn't narrow things down further, you already have a unique plane. (As an aside, to me "aircraft type" implies things like "helicopter" or "wide-body airliner" not "Boeing 777"). What benefit is there to any user in removing categories like Category:G-BOAC (aircraft) from Category:Aircraft by registration? IMO the only logical subcats for aircraft by registration are for the countries of registration. That would link all G registered planes together, and would allow G-BOAC to have a sortkey starting with B instead of G - making it slightly easier to find in the still huge list.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do have country-specific categories. Category:Aircraft registered in the United Kingdom is a parent for all G- registration categories, and there are lots of other such categories for more or less any registration prefix. And "type" is the official ICAO designation for what may otherwise be called an aircraft model. Using "model" for general aircraft categories is problematic though, because it should only be used for categories of scale models. Hence the "by type" wording of the subcategories that was rightfully introduced by Uli Elch. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And those are the only ones that logically belong under by registration. As they are aspects of aircraft registration, not an otherwise unrelated aspect of aircraft.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure?
Aircraft by registration
`-- Aircraft registered in the United Kingdom
`-- Aircraft registered in France
`---G-BOAC
`---F-IBEX
That way you would empty "Aircraft by registration" of all registration categories, because per COM:OVERCAT they would have to be sorted into the relevant country-specific subcategories, leaving you again with no direct search options. At the moment, "Aircraft by registration" and "Aircraft by registration country" are at the same level in Category:Aircraft registrations and that is a good structure. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with that structure. My point there is if we don't want to merge those two related concepts (the registration code and the registration country), why would we want to link two entirely unrelated categories?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Specific as in actually discussing the particular concern raised. Not discussing general points which could equally apply to any category. The application of set theory to Commons categories is the problematic case. Its based on the assumption that subategories must be subsets. That's clearly not true in many cases.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, if a subcategory is not a subset of its parent categories, where is the navigational benefit? Categories in a category tree shall "reflect a hierarchy of concepts, from the most generic one down to the very specific". De728631 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion. The navigational benefit is from linking two related concepts, but that relationship is not necessarily that between a set and its subset. The photos of a building in a city are a subset of the photos of the city. The photos of a building built by an architect are not a subset of the photos of the architect.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"See this discussion." TLDR, and too much set theory. Still, there is a relationship between the architect and his buildings, so the photos of buildings are a subset of images related to the architect. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The short version is that the real issues start to appear at the 2nd order. The building could easily be a subcat of an entirely different city (the birthplace of the architect). That relationship is tenuous, but the two steps to get there are perfectly valid. Its conceivable that someone would place a photo of the building directly in the architect's category; its implausible that they would place it in their birthplace's category. That relationship is clearly not a strict subset-of-subset relationship, in contrast to building-city-country which would be.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should retain current use of Category:Aircraft by registration. It is an index of all aircraft registrations, regardless of further sub-categorization that can occur. Sub-categorization can be done by type, by country of registration, or by any number of other criteria. It is best if a registration is accurately categorized by all relevant methods, not just one. However, none of that changes the fact that it is both valuable and without harm to have an index that retains a link to all registrations. Since it does no harm and provides value, the current structure and method of using Category:Aircraft by registration should be retained. Josh (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with having all single-aircraft registration categories in the main "Aircraft by registration" acting as a super-category. This is not uncommon practice. A standardisation of the "by type" subcategories is always a good thing, of course. — Huntster (t@c)19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are some valid reasons to rethink exactly how Category:Aircraft registrations is structured. Never mind the hashing about whether or not a guideline is being obeyed or whether we are properly applying set theory, none of that is terribly valuable. The category does however beg some more clarity and streamlining. There are a couple issues which we can deal with in pieces, or as a whole. Josh (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1 - xxxx (aircraft) categories are aircraft registrations, not aircraft. However, they are often treated as aircraft, especially since they say 'aircraft' parenthetically. This is not a problem for most common usage, but is exposed in corner cases and when analyzing the category structure. Keep in mind an aircraft may be assigned several registrations over its life, and some registrations may be assigned to different aircraft over time. Specific sub-categories of an aircraft registration category can be created to show its application to different aircraft (e.g. Category:N305FA (aircraft) into Category:N305FA (Boeing 737) and Category:N305FA (MD-83)). Proper names should be 'Aircraft registration N305FA' with sub-cats 'Aircraft registration N305FA assigned to Boeing 737 c/n 28662' and 'Aircraft registration N305FA assigned to MD-83 c/n 49398'. I am not proposing renaming these categories, unless someone is up for moving 75,000+ categories. The current abbreviated names are fine, but we should have a better description of what exactly those categories cover.
2 - Category:Aircraft by registration is named incorrectly. As noted above, the sub-cats are aircraft registrations, not aircraft, so the correct title should be Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list) or some other such appropriate title to indicate it is an index of all aircraft registrations ordered alpha-numerically. As it is, the current name adds to the confusion referred to in note 1 above. It may be appropriate to make this category a hidden cat while we are at it. Once this is done, sub and meta cats can be moved directly under Category:Aircraft registrations.
3 - Military identification numbers are not consistently treated. These are sometimes treated as aircraft registrations and other times as serial numbers or some other unrelated tree. Category:Aircraft registrations should cover all individual aircraft identifications assigned by authorities, military or civil. Sub-categorization can break down between assigning authorities for those that it is helpful for, but not all users will know what the issuing authority is for a particular identifier. No rename is needed, but a better description is required to make it clear what the category covers.
4 - Category:Aircraft by registration country is named incorrectly. As above, a more clear and concise name should be used, such as Category:Aircraft registrations by country of issue, to make it clear that the items within are aircraft registrations and that they are ordered by the country which issued the registration. It should be listed directly under Category:Aircraft registrations and not under Category:Aircraft by registration/Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list). Category:Aircraft by registration continent should get similar treatment, though 'continents' do not issue registrations, countries do.
Some tweaks like these would allow the continued use of aircraft registration categories essentially as they have been used for the 75,000+ registrations in place, while at the same time adding clarity and cleaning up the structure of the category quite a bit. They will hopefully go some way to satisfying concerns over COM:OVERCAT and the set theory issues raised by De728631 (talk·contribs) and Fractaler (talk·contribs). Josh (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to differentiate between xxxx (aircraft) and xxxx (aircraft registration) and all subsequent namings. Apart from Category:Temporary aircraft registrations that are used for test and transfer flights, registrations are seldom changed over the life of an aircraft frame and the registration is therefore often synonymous with the single airframe it got assigned to. We already have Category:Re-used aircraft registrations and its appropriate sub-categories as you showed above.
@De728631: You are incorrect that registrations are seldom changed; it is common practice to change a commercial aircraft registration several times during its life, especially when it changes ownership. I would not advise eliminating the existing sub-categorization of xxxx (aircraft) into xxxx (specific aircraft) categories. Assuming synonymy between an aircraft and its registration is a mistake. As stated, I am not proposing that these categories be renamed, but merely that we have better definition of them as being specifically related to that aircraft registration. Josh (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you wrote "Category:Aircraft by registration is named incorrectly. ... the correct title should be Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list) or some other such appropriate title", or "Category:Aircraft by registration by manufacturer and type are incorrect. They should be renamed Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned". Isn't that renaming? Apart from Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list), I think this is unnecessary, and imho Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned would be outright confusing. Btw, you created the two latter categories (by registration by manufacturer / by registration by type [model]) last year, so how come you changed your mind now? As I see it, the focus is already on the registration numbers now – even with names like "xxxx (aircraft)". If it's really that common for commercial registrations to be changed, Category:Re-used aircraft registrations with xxxx (specific aircraft) subcategories should become more populated though. Different aircraft should not be lumped into a single registration category. De728631 (talk)
My apologies for not being clear. I don't propose changing the xxxx (aircraft) naming scheme. I do however, think that the meta cats they are in should be renamed per my suggestions above. You are right that some of them are ones I created myself under flawed names. I named them as I did in order to keep with the naming of Category:Aircraft by registration, but I wasn't thrilled by it at the time, and I am even less so now. I'm not sure what you are concerned about with lumping. As it stands now, if a registration is applied to multiple aircraft (which is less common than one aircraft having multiple registrations), then it should be broken down (see Category:N305FA (aircraft)). The main registration category should be also categorized in Category:Re-used aircraft registrations. That is current practice, and I don't think anyone is suggesting changing it. Josh (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Military ID numbers are a problem though. Apparently there are in fact two major approaches among the armed forces of how to apply such registrations, namely using an aircraft's generic serial number (e.g. US Air Force, Italy) or issuing an unrelated ID (Germany, UK, Netherlands, etc.) Sometimes like in Italy or Spain, there are even two parallel schemes of markings on a single aircraft, such as an internal squadron ID (e.g. 41-12) and a permanent serial number. This has already led to inconsistent category schemes as in Category:Military aircraft registered in Spain or Category:Military aircraft registered in Italy (see the MM##### serials). So these need some consistency. De728631 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The US is no different than Germany or the UK: none use a 'generic' serial number, but instead assign their own numbers per whatever system they have established at the time. Some of these systems adopt the serials already assigned by other agencies or the manufacturer, but again, the sytems are set by each individual issuing authority. What is fundamentally different are identifiers that are assigned for the service life of an aircraft (such as the US Navy's BuNo) vs. those that are assigned to indicate organizational assignment and may be changed throughout its service life (such as the US Navy's tactical codes). However, in all cases, just as with civil registrations, the categories are for the identifier, not the airframe, and thus they should all be handled within the same consistent structure regardless of local differences in how such numbers are devised. Josh (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the service-life ID vs tactical code schemes. It is essentially what I tried to write above but maybe it didn't come through. I agree that in the future we should not use any tactical codes for "registration" categories but stick to BuNos, serials and other such official "top-level" IDs. Where applicable, we should redirect existing "tactical" categories to categories with the official registration number, e.g. Category:43-28 (aircraft) → Category:UD.13-28 (aircraft). De728631 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you that the 'tactical codes' and the like should not be necessarily considered aircraft registrations, while 'serial numbers' like BuNos, etc. should be under aircraft registrations. I also agree that it is curently not consistent and has been hard to know exactly how to proceed with those kinds of categories. We can have 'tactical code' categories, but they should be kept in their own category. The difficulty will be that many users may not be aware of the differences. Josh (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For 'tactical codes' I assume you mean Squadron Codes and yes users may not be aware of the differences. Even aircraft enthusiasts get it wrong. A Chilean aircraft at the Farnborough Airshow was widely quoted in reports as having a serial which later turned out to be a squadron code. Seperate categories for these could be useful? eg Aircraft of 32 Squatron for example. SkymasterUK (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now on the page Category:B-6140 (aircraft) we can see such static information: Airbus A380-841, cn/serial number: 120, *China Southern Airlines 2013 to date as B-6140. No "is an 'aircraft registration'" on the page. And the pages from the examples have definitions on their pages ("China Southern Airlines is an airline based in Guangzhou in the Guangdong province of the People's Republic of China (PRC)", etc.). --Fractaler (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or, for example, Wikidata's definitions:
Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/04
<nowiki>matrícula de aeronaves; 飛機註冊編號; lajstromjel; matrícula de l'aeronau; Luftfahrzeugkennzeichen; فهرست پیشوندهای ثبتی هواپیما; 航空器註冊編號; Nationale kendingsbogstaver; ہوائی جہاز رجسٹریشن; 機体記号; Luftfartygsregister; רישום כלי טיס; 航空器註冊編號; Ilma-alusrekisteri; registra numero de aviadilo; imatrikulace; registracija zrakoplova; marche d'immatricolazione; আকাশযান নিবন্ধীকরণ; immatriculation des aéronefs; registracija zrakoplova; לופטמאשין רעגיסטראציע; prefixo aeronáutico; Prefixo aeronáutico; Luftfohrtüüchkennteken; регистрација ваздухоплова; Registracija zrakoplova; 항공기 등록부호; orlaivių registracija; 航空器註冊編號; registrasi pesawat; międzynarodowy kod samolotowy; nasjonale kjennetegn på fly; vliegtuigregistratienummer; ہوائی جہاز رجسٹریشن; регистрация воздушных судов; Самолетазул хъвай-хъвагӀай; Uçak tescili; aircraft registration; تسجيل طائرة; 航空器注册编号; реєстрація повітряних суден; serie alfanumérica que distingue a una aeronave; 航空機の機体ごとに割り当てられている記号及び番号; egy repülőgépet azonosító, betűkből és számokból álló jel; registersystem för civila luftfartyg; międzynarodowy system znakowania statków powietrznych; individuelt registreringsnummer for fly og andre registreringspliktige luftfartøy; registratie waaronder het vliegtuig bekend is bij de nationale autoriteit; קאד וואס אידענטיפיצירט א לופטמאשין; Code, der ein Luftfahrzeug eindeutig identifiziert; জাতীয় বিমান কর্তৃপক্ষ কর্তৃক একটি পৃথক বিমানের জন্য নির্ধারিত নিবন্ধীকরণ এবং শনাক্তকরণ; registration and identification assigned to an individual aircraft by national aviation authorities; matricola alfanumerica che identifica un aeromobile; registrační značka letadla přidělená příslušným úřadem; string alfanumerik pesawat terbang; código de matriculación de aeronaves OACI; código de registro de aeronaves; matrícula aeronáutica; matricula de aeronaves; codigo de matriculacion de aeronaves OACI; codigo de registro de aeronaves; matricula aeronautica; 機体登録記号; 機体登録番号; 登録記号; 機体登録; 機体番号; 機番; レジ; レジ番; Immatriculations aéronautiques; Immatriculations aéraunautiques; marche; codice velivolo; codice di registrazione degli aeromobili; matricola degli aeromobili; matricola aeromobili; marche di immatricolazione; marche aeromobile; matricola aeromobile; numero di coda; nomor pendaftaran pesawat; kod samolotowy; halenummer; Vliegtuigregistratie; Staartnummer; Бортовой номер самолета; Регистрационный номер воздушного судна; Регистрационный номер самолёта; Бортовой номер самолёта; 機尾編號; 機身編號; 飛機註冊編號; 飞机注册编号; 注册号; Flugzeugkennzeichen; Flugzeug-Kennung; Luftfahrzeugkennung; Flugzeugkennung; Flugzeugkennungen; Kennzeichen von Luftfahrzeugen; Flugleistungsklasse; Luftfahrzeug-Kennung; 항공기 등록번호; 항공기 등록기호; aircraft registration code; tail number; aircraft marks; registration marks; تسجيل طائره; تسجيل الطائرة; registrační značky letadel; imatrikulace letadla; registrační značka letadla; Internationale kendingsbogstaver</nowiki>
aircraft registration
registration and identification assigned to an individual aircraft by national aviation authorities
<nowiki>Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Еърбъс А380; ایئربس اے380; ایئربس اے380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Аеробус A380; Airbus A380; 空中巴士A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Ербас А380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; এয়ারবাস এ৩৮০; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; ערבוס A380; एअरबस ए३८०; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Ербас А380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; Airbas A380; ئێرباس ئەی٣٨٠; Airbus A380; إيرباص إيه 380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; အဲယားဘတ်စ် A380; 空中巴士 A380; Airbus A380; એરબસ એ ૩૮૦; ایرباس آ-۳۸۰; Airbus A380; แอร์บัส เอ380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; エアバスA380; ఎయిర్బస్ A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; एयरबस ए३८०; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; ஏர்பஸ் ஏ380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; එයාර් බස් A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; 空中巴士A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Erbas A380; Airbus A380; Ербас А380; Аэробус A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; എയർബസ് എ380; 空中巴士A380; איירבוס A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中巴士A380; Airbus A380; 에어버스 A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; avión quatrimotor de fuselaje ancho y doble piso, actualmente el avión de pasajeros más grande del mundo; breiðþota; Pesawat berbadan lebar, dua dek, empat enjin, kini merupakan pesawat penumpang terbesar di dunia; Wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world; Широкофюзелажен, двупалубен, четиримоторен самолет, в момента най-големият пътнически самолет в света; avion de pasageri; ایئربس کا تیارکردہ دو منزلہ طیارہ; Fiaramanidina midadasika, avo roa heny, misy maotera efatra, amin'izao fotoana izao no fiaramanidina mpandeha lehibe indrindra eran-tany; dopravné lietadlo; двохпалубний широкофюзеляжний пасажирський літак, створений Airbus; 四发涡轮风扇大容积远程客机; Airbus에서 제작 한 더블 데크 항공기; Кең шанақты, екі палубалы, төрт қозғалтқышты ұшақ, қазіргі уақытта әлемдегі ең үлкен жолаушы ұшағы; největší dopravní letoun světa; Širokotrupni avion sa dva sprata sa četiri motora, trenutno najveći putnički avion na svetu; ওয়াইড-বডি, ডাবল-ডেক, চার ইঞ্জিনের বিমান, বর্তমানে বিশ্বের বৃহত্তম যাত্রীবাহী বিমান; plus grand avion civil du monde, produit par Airbus de 2007 à 2021; Wide-body, dobel-deck, pesawat papat mesin, saiki pesawat penumpang paling gedhe ing donya; Širokotrupni, dvopalubni, četveromotorni zrakoplov, trenutno najveći putnički zrakoplov na svijetu; वाइड-बॉडी, डबल-डेक, चार इंजिन असलेले विमान, सध्या जगातील सर्वात मोठे प्रवासी विमान आहे; Dòng máy bay thân rộng 2 tầng bốn động cơ do Airbus phát triển; Plata korpusa, divstāvu, četru dzinēju lidmašīna, šobrīd lielākā pasažieru lidmašīna pasaulē; dubbel-dek vliegtuig vervaardig deur Airbus; Широкотрупни, двоспратни, четворомоторни авион, тренутно највећи путнички авион на свету; Plèana le corp farsaing, deic dhùbailte, ceithir-einnsean, an-dràsta an itealan luchd-siubhail as motha san t-saoghal; Breet-Kierper, duebel-Deck, véier-Moteur Fliger, de Moment de gréisste Passagéierfliger vun der Welt; langdistanse passasjerfly; Geniş gövdəli, ikiqat göyərtəli, dörd mühərrikli təyyarə, hazırda dünyanın ən böyük sərnişin təyyarəsidir; wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world; طائرة ذات طابقين تصنعها إيرباص; négyhajtóműves, szélestörzsű, óriás utasszállító repülőgép; વાઈડ-બોડી, ડબલ-ડેક, ફોર એન્જિન એરક્રાફ્ટ, હાલમાં વિશ્વનું સૌથી મોટું પેસેન્જર એરક્રાફ્ટ; Gorputz zabaleko, solairu biko eta lau motorreko hegazkinak, gaur egun munduko bidaiarien hegazkin handiena; avión de doble puente fabricáu por Airbus; Двухпалубный пассажирский самолёт; Awyren pedwar injan corff llydan, dec dwbl, yr awyren fwyaf yn y byd i deithwyr ar hyn o bryd; بزرگترین هواپیمای مسافربری جهان; 四發動機中長程雙層客機; Wide-body, dobbeltdækket, firemotors fly, i øjeblikket det største passagerfly i verden; ფართო ტანის, ორსართულიანი, ოთხძრავიანი თვითმფრინავი, ამჟამად ყველაზე დიდი სამგზავრო თვითმფრინავია მსოფლიოში; エアバス製の総二階建て4発ジェット旅客機; מטוס נוסעים רחב-גוף דו-קומתי; Киң гәүдәле, ике катлы, дүрт двигательле самолет, хәзерге вакытта дөньядагы иң зур пассажир самолеты; वाइड-बॉडी, डबल-डेक, चार इंजन वाला विमान, वर्तमान में दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा यात्री विमान है; వైడ్-బాడీ, డబుల్ డెక్, ఫోర్-ఇంజిన్ ఎయిర్క్రాఫ్ట్, ప్రస్తుతం ప్రపంచంలోనే అతిపెద్ద ప్యాసింజర్ ఎయిర్క్రాఫ్ట్; maailman suurin matkustajalentokone; Wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world; பரந்த உடல், இரட்டை அடுக்கு, நான்கு எஞ்சின் விமானம், தற்போது உலகின் மிகப்பெரிய பயணிகள் விமானம்; modello di aeromobile a doppio ponte; Laia kerega kahekorruseline neljamootoriline lennuk, hetkel suurim reisilennuk maailmas; 四发涡轮风扇大容积远程客机; පුළුල් ශරීර, ද්විත්ව තට්ටු, එන්ජින් හතරේ ගුවන් යානා, දැනට ලෝකයේ විශාලතම මගී ගුවන් යානය; Dünyanın en büyük yolcu uçağı; Corpus latum, duplex deck, quattuor machinae aircraft, nunc maxima viatoribus aircraft in mundo; aeronave quadrimotor a jato para transporte de passageiros; อากาศยานไอพ่นลำตัวกว้างสองชั้น; europeiskt fyrmotorigt jetflygplan för långdistansflygning; avion de linha civil fòrça gròs-portaire long-corrièr quadrireactor de doble pont produit per Airbus; Plataus korpuso, dviejų aukštų, keturių variklių lėktuvas, šiuo metu didžiausias keleivinis lėktuvas pasaulyje; Širokotrupno, dvonivojsko, štirimotorno letalo, trenutno največje potniško letalo na svetu; एयरबस द्वारा डबल-डेक विमानको निर्माण; passagiersvliegtuig; samolot pasażerski; pesawat dek ganda berbadan lebar; Ndege yenye mwili mpana, yenye sitaha, yenye injini nne, ambayo kwa sasa ni ndege kubwa zaidi ya abiria duniani; വൈഡ് ബോഡി, ഡബിൾ ഡെക്ക്, ഫോർ എഞ്ചിൻ എയർക്രാഫ്റ്റ്, നിലവിൽ ലോകത്തിലെ ഏറ്റവും വലിയ യാത്രാ വിമാനം; 搭載4台引擎的空中巴士巨無霸客機; vierstrahliges Großraumflugzeug; Авион со широк каросерија, двокатни, четири мотори, моментално најголемиот патнички авион во светот; Լայն թափքով, երկհարկանի, չորս շարժիչով ինքնաթիռ, ներկայումս աշխարհի ամենամեծ մարդատար ինքնաթիռը; Keng korpusli, ikki qavatli, to'rt dvigatelli samolyot, hozirgi vaqtda dunyodagi eng katta yo'lovchi samolyoti; avión de pasaxeiros; Өргөн биетэй, хоёр тавцантай, дөрвөн хөдөлгүүртэй онгоц нь одоогоор дэлхийн хамгийн том зорчигч тээврийн онгоц юм; τύπος αεροσκάφους της Airbus; avió civil fabricat per Airbus; A380; A380; Airbus A3XX; A380; A380; 空中巴士A380; 空客A380; A380; A380; A380; A380; 空巴A380; 空巴巨無霸客機; A380; Airbus Jumbo Jet; A380 Jumbo Jet; ए३८०; Superjumbo; A380; A380; A380 Jumbo Jet; Airbus Jumbo Jet; A380 Jumbo Jet; A380; A٣٨٠; أيرباص ٣٨٠; إيرباص A٣٨٠; إيرباص آي ٣٨٠; إيرباص آي٣٨٠; إيرباص إيه ٣٨٠; إيرباص إيه٣٨٠; إيرباص ٣٨٠; إيه ٣٨٠; اير باص ايه-٣٨٠; ايرباص A٣٨٠; ايرباص ايه ٣٨٠; ايرباص٣٨٠; ايرباص ايه 380; إيرباص A380; إيرباص إيه380; ايرباص A380; إيرباص آي380; اير باص ايه-380; إيرباص 380; ايرباص380; أيرباص 380; A380; إيه 380; إيرباص آي 380; سوبر جامبو; Airbus A380 (dopravní letadlo); A380</nowiki>
Airbus A380
wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world
Those infoboxes are well suited to gallery pages, but not so much for categories. Wikidata doesn't have items for individual aircraft registrations as far as I am aware. I just looked it up and there are no items with instance of: Q838849 (aircraft registration) Josh (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean these items? About definition: in order to be able to display the definition (by version of WD, if there is no version of Commons) on a category page, I'm now trying to make a template {{DescriptionWD}} (using Module:Wikidata description). For example, "aircraft registration": registration and identification assigned to an individual aircraft by national aviation authorities --Fractaler (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631, Fractaler, Nilfanion, Auntof6, and Huntster:
Can we possibly close this out? There was a lot of discussion but not much in the way of specific proposals or consensus of said proposals. The OP (de728631) was correct that this category violates COM:OVERCAT when sub cats such as Category:Airbus A320 by registration are included. There is no reason it should, so I propose we fix this by simply restricting this category to actual categories which include the registration in their name (e.g. Category:B-6140 (aircraft)) and not other metacats and such. For the purposs of this category, the term 'registration' includes all officially assigned aircraft IDs, and thus includes civil aircraft registrations issued by national aviation authorities as well as military aircraft serial numbers assigned for the aircraft's service life. Is it possible that we can agree on this simple tweak to come into compliance with COM:OVERCAT and then tackle the other issues raised above in their own conversations? Josh (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously expressed my opinion that keeping this a super-category for all registrations is not an issue and is a reasonable exception (as with Category:Ships by name and others). There is the very real potential for a flat-list to be useful to end users. — Huntster (t@c)23:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this should be a flat category containing all registrations. I understand the concerns about overcategorization, but I think categories containing all individual entries are useful. Maybe this cat should be renamed to indicate that it's a flat category. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would make sense. That way we'd have a cat with a subcat for each registration ID, and we could also have categories that group the IDs by whatever criteria are useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It don't think it's redundant -- "sexy nurse outfits" are not nurse uniforms that happen to be sexy, but a particular type of highly-specialized Halloween costume or costume-party outfit, which actual qualified working nurses generally wouldn't be seen dead in. (Note that very few actual qualified nurses have worn skirts or dresses on the job in the last 40 years.) "Sexy nurse outfits" bear the same relationship to professional nurse attire that Category:French maid outfits bear to uniforms worn by actual cleaning personnel... AnonMoos (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree that there is a difference between people wearing costumes to pretend that they are nurses and nurses wearing their uniforms. What we have now is a category of costumes and a subcategory also of costumes. We didn't actually have a category for actual nurse uniforms, so I have created Category:Nurse's uniforms for the uniforms only. Can we get rid of the "sexy" one now, or should we discuss which ones are sexy and which ones aren't? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I highly approve of the creation of Category:Nurse's uniforms (thanks), but that doesn't change the fact that "sexy" in "sexy nurse outfits" is not a subjective evaluation, but rather a descriptor of the nature and purpose of such outfits. Do a Google search on the words nurse halloween and see how often the word "sexy" is included in the results... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Nurse16thcentury.jpg isn't wearing any special outfit or costume at all, but normal women's clothing for the period. I have very little idea what's going on with the "Eurogym" nonsense, but the skirts are much much shorter than real nurses ever wore (back when they wore skirts), which moves it pretty firmly into the "sexy" column (ditto File:Zombie Nurse (5134635912).jpg). -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one expects cheap Halloween or dress-up costumes to be historically accurate. A nurse costume is a nurse costume. Once distinguished from nurse's uniforms, there is no useful reason to divide them into "sexy" or not "sexy" based on subjective ideas of what is sexy. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It derives from the nature and purpose of the outfit, not subjective evaluation. The person or company who made the dress in File:Dragon Con 2006, The Twilight Zone, The Eye of the Beholder (244341293).jpg clearly did not intend to sex it up. With many of the others, the opposite intention is clear. There are a few where it's hard to tell due to a limited view, or the "costume" consisting exclusively of a headpiece, but those are marginal cases... AnonMoos (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that the phrase "sexy nurse costume" gets 952,000 hits per google. It seems a cultural archetype rather than a personal judgement. (I tried searches for other professions in place of "nurse". "Sexy maid costume" comes in a distant second with a bit over 200,000 hits, only a handful over 100k, most under 1k if not significantly less.)-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This post should not be named "Neumünster Prison" but "Solidarity with Puigdemont". It provides almost no useful information about the prison. Only interesting as support for Catalan separatists. 192.1z64.136.2017:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tose pics are taken at Neumünster prison, this is a fact. So they illustrate that building. I shall not respond to anonymous critics that don't have the courage to say who they are.--Flamenc (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please both of you avoid personal attacks. Second, I agree that all the images were taken at Neumünster prison, so there're perfectly appropriate for the category. For those images specifically showing protests/protest signs at the prison, a sub-category of Category:Neumünster Prison (JVA)could be created. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is not a good categorization and must be eliminated. I already presented to speedy deletion one of its four subcats. Another one, "Tamil people by occupation": Tamil people are an ethnic group, a people, a nationality. They have no need to be defined "by language". We should empty the present cat and delete it. E4024 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked a related discussion of a category that seems to be a duplicate of this one. I think both could be eliminated. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have no "Medical corps" cat for any (current or former) country; therefore we do not need any for the Ottoman Empire. OTOH, the cat-opener continues their practice of wrong capitalization, despite having been spoken to. I will get this cat deleted. If there is any compelling reason to keep it -after correcting the title- please write here ASAP. E4024 (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because; how are we to be sure that some of these are not from transgender people? Did you get proof of gender or maybe only women whom have had a child; should provide a proper picture. Otherwise; these may not be correct. 98.159.32.14607:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can consider vulvas, vaginas, labia, etc. to be female organs even if they belong to 1) a transman who has not had gender reassignment surgery or 2) a transwoman who has had the surgery. In this situation, we are talking about the organs, not the people they belong to. Unless and until we have a different term for this ("reproductive organs related to being pregnant, carrying a fetus, and giving birth"?), this may be the best we can do. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vote on what, exactly? This is cats for discussion, not for deletion. The editor who started this discussion seems to have an issue with whether the files in the category fit the cat name. They don't seem to be saying the cat should be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The category and its subcategories consist primarily of subjective opinions of other images on Commons, and some instances of attack images. Examples include editors labelling a female lizard rebuffing a male's courtship as "inceldom among animals". Given that "inceldom" is not a notable sexual identity (or medical condition) there is no educational value served by maintaining this category. RA0808 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these. The topic is so subjective that the only things I think could be included are literature specifically about the topic, conferences that discuss it, and similar things that explicitly mention it. If we're going to include everyone who would like to have a sexual partner, what would be next: people who can't get dates? In the case of animals, we certainly can't always know if their situation is involuntary, and we shouldn't look at them through the lens of human sexuality anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main category as well as the media category. Weak keep for the animal category. Delete the rest. My purpose for keeping these is that this seems to be a significant social phenomenon as even a cursory google search will attest. The only reason it seems subjective is because the concept is not thoroughly defined by academia, however due to recent influx of interest that is obvious bound to change. if we delete this now, it is possible commons will never find anyone willing to pt time and effort to revive the topic hence making commons deprived of possible edcational topics. 88.104.46.20022:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why keep the media category? The contents are images from the promotion of the NBC sitcom en:Undateable, whose wiki articles, unsurprisingly, make zero mention of incel culture. And I daresay any attempt to stick an incel spin into the enwiki article would be quickly reverted. This seems to me to be another example of an editor using the Commons, which is subject to less scrutiny than enwiki, to create subjective misleading linkages to incel culture for the purposes of promoting or legitimizing it, here. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly an attempt to draw together a bunch of disparate items regardless of accuracy or relevance. There's a cartoon from 1903 purporting to be of a 21st century concept. Unless we have some kind of reliable source documenting a link, this is inappropriate categorization. Gamaliel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are currently 4 relevant images. The delete rationale does not concur with reality since google search returns give 2,170,000 results, so obviously it is notable. Also, the fact that inceldom has been studied by some academics (although admittedly to a limted extent) such as Gilmartin and Donelly means that there is an educational component, even though that shouldnt be a necessity since the subculture alone is notable in and of itself. Tbaend (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe keep the "inceldom" top level category, but there is not enough content to justify the others. "Inceldom among animals" should absolutely be deleted, since as far as I'm aware no animals are members of the online subculture... – GorillaWarfare(talk)16:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename main category back to Category:Incel, from which it was wrongly moved, to match articles, and Delete subcategories. There definitely seems to be some POV pushing here with the subcats. The notion that celibate animals are participating in something known as 'inceldom' is ludicrous. We need to be on guard against any attempt to equate any celibate male (as I happen to be, alas) with being somehow part of Incel culture and its value system, or using the Commons as a en:WP:WEBHOST for its followers, or as a platform to misuse images to create en:WP:SYNTH meanings to attempt to justify this ideology. Without wading too much into the muck of this, my guess is incellies didn't get their way on enwiki or someplace and are attempting to use the Commons to host content or push views. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People will naturally expect to find the cat at "Foods" as most categories are in plural, if this is deleted, it could cause files to have a red cat. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. For a correct synthaxe in a category name it's not necessary to know the content of the object. Change the name. Thanks. --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Some of the subcats here have newspaper names capitalized and some others not. I guess we should have a standard practice. Please do not get unnecessarily mad at me for doing it this way; if not I would have to open too many cats to discussion. I'm sure that would be more disturbing and time consuming; so, especially people who know Russian also please say something constructive to help with this CfD. E4024 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing without action on this category, as it is a reasonable and used intersection of two categories. Certain categories may benefit from improved naming, but that is not an issue with this particular category. -- 22:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This discussion encloses also Victims of colonialism.
Both categories are a clear POV.
Imperialism is a term created by the political opponents of capitalism.
Is not a, so to say, self-conscious doctrine like Fascism of Communism which definitions are widely agreed upon everyone (no metter if oppnents). Thus is a POV definition. Further, it had only a subcategory, which is related to a massacre of the Vietnam War. Nothing related to the imperialism. As a matter of fact, I think the whole tree Imperialism as problematic and out of scope here. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)17:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fascists call themselves as "fascists", @Themightyquill: . I am Italian thus I well know the history of Fascism. In 1932 there was the Mostra Nazionale della Rivoluzione Fascista (National Exposition of the Fascist Revolution). Have you ever heard anyone acting as so-called imperialist call themselves imperialist? That's what I mean, hope that what I said makes sense. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)11:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackcat: In common usage as on commons, fascism is not limited to Italian fascism. And yes, I suspect some of those in favour of empire (White Man's burden, etc) would have used the term as a self-description, though admittedly, it was (and is) primarily used in a negative sense. I don't suspect many terrorists call themselves terrorists either, but we still have a category for their victims. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but terrorist is a less vague definition than imperialist, @Themightyquill: . How do you define an imperialist? How do you classify a crime of war crime of imperialism (unless you want to consider all the modern wars since WWI wars of imperialism)? -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)17:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think terrorism has a pretty vague and subjective definition too. Why would I start at WWI? Arguably, that's when empires started to collapse. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but terrorism is a hugely intersubjectively assessed definition. Journalists, historians, law enforcers, agree that terrorism is generally the use of violence by paramilitary organizations in order to create terror and undermine the authority of a government [I reckon that there's more than this]; whereas we can identify victims of terrorism according to commonly assessed parametres, how can we define a victim of colonialism or imperialism? -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)20:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of these categories are subjective. It's similarly difficult, for instance, to classify "victims of communism" according to commonly assessed paramters. You have yet to suggest a suitable alternative for the sub-categories mentioned above, making your argument seem increasingly ideological rather than technical in nature. If you're concerned about the nebulous nature of the word "imperialism" how about "Victims of European imperial expansion" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but again: historians generally agree about the event horizon within which every ideology has its victims. They may disagree about the quantity of victims and the diametre of the horizon but the bottom line is that they agree that this horizon exists. Now, even considering imperialism as an issue per se (which is not granted because many historians don't see the expansion on new markets as imperialism) the main problem is how to consider the people dead in an episode of war "victims of imperialism" (not that changing into european imperial expansion is any better...). -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)18:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply] PS and, even more shortly: we are not historians nor we have to do their work. There's a shared narrative about victims of communism, victims of fascism, victims of Inquisition, and so on, but victims of imperialism is not a shared view (undue weight) since is a cultural product of historians and economists of Marxist area....
Closing with no action taken; no new discussion since May 2018. No consensus to delete or rename category. (As an aside, the nominator's statement that that the term is of "political opponents of capitalism" seems unfounded, as empires that victimized populations date from antiquity, and the Spanish Empire at it's height, whether one follows the definitions of Marx or Adam Smith, was not capitalist, etc; see also en:w:Soviet Empire for viewpoint that "communist" states can also be imperialist... though such is a discussion for elsewhere; I am simply noting that the nominator's viewpoint is not universally held.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I'd say move this cat as suggested, because I believe in qualifying anything like this, then move the gallery disambiguation page to a cat disambiguation page. Along with qualifying the state category, many subcats would need the same change. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep Category:Maine for the U.S. state. On Commons, our driving guiding principles should be those that best help organize existing media and future additions, i.e. utility and practicality over semantics, linguistics, or national pride. The U.S. state is the undisambiguated usage in the majority of languages on WIkipedia (Maine (Q724)), while the French province is almost always disambiguated (Maine (Q732738)). The historic French province was apparently abolished in 1790, and the region occupied by the former province has a present population of around 850,000, while the U.S. state is still quite real as a political and geographical entity, with a population over 1.3 million. There are presently 35 top-level categories and over 1,300 top-level files in Category:Maine alone, versus 5 categories and 19 files in Category:Maine (province). We should ask: what is the likelihood that the average user, either seeking to find or upload an image, will reach the unintended category: given that the province of Maine ended some 40-50 years before the first photograph was ever made, it can be reasoned that someone seeking to upload a photograph of, say, "people in Maine" are most-likely to be imagining the U.S. state. Our categorization scheme should best reflect and accommodate prevailing usage, although I have no objection to liberal usage of hatnote templates to help direct a minority of users who may be temporarily confused. --Animalparty (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the primary topic at the unqualified title works well at Wikipedia, because Wikipedia deals with text. When reading an article there, it's easy to tell if it's about the topic you're interested in. If a person is looking for the French province and finds en:Maine, they will know it's the wrong topic as soon as they see the hatnote or the first sentence.
Commons, though, deals with files, not text. Someone looking for files about the French province might be able to tell that Category:Maine isn't what they want by looking at how it's categorized or at any hatnotes there might be, much as with Wikipedia. However, much of the work here is putting files into categories, and that's where we get into trouble when we follow Wikipedia's practice. Here are some scenarios that illustrate this:
Files get categorized by people and bots who don't (and sometimes can't, in the case of bots) check each category they assign. If a file has a list of key words, all the keywords might be assigned as categories, whether or not they exist and whether or not some of them need to be combined to be correct. For example, a file related to New York City might be assigned to Category:New, Category:York, and Category:City. A person using HotCat to categorize sees only category names, not any context that could guide them to the correct one.
If the unqualified name happens to mean something in a language other than English, things for that meaning can get assigned to the category. For example, Category:Praia (Cape Verde) used to get random beach pictures before it was qualified, because praia means beach in Portuguese.
Not everyone understands the concept of primary topic. Even with people who do understand it, they might not know, agree, or be able to tell which meaning is primary when assigning categories. People who live in the French province of Maine might not know about the US state.
If a file gets into an incorrect category, it can be impossible to detect that. A tree, a person, or a street in the state of Maine may be indistinguishable from one in the French province. The only clues are in the file and file description, and those often have nothing helpful.
One could argue that people and bots need to be better at categorizing, and that's true in many cases. However, reality is that these kinds of mistakes are made, and having qualified category names gives us a better chance of assigning correct categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closed Stale discussion with no new input in more than 3 years. No consensus to change or move. Leaving Category:Maine as the US state, as that is the primary usage and consistent with en:w and wikipedias in other languages. Hatnote to Category:Maine (disambiguation) placed at top of category. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I'd say the difference between the two is highly dependent upon your particular region - rules for admission to children vary by district, and atmosphere is not subject to laws. A bar can be a discotheque or a pub. A pub can serve food or not. I'd agree that "pub" or Public House is used more in countries with a connection to the UK but Category:Pubs by country defies that. So we can pick one generic term for everything, or categorizing drinking establishments based on their name, in which case we also need to create category trees for Category:Taverns, Category:Saloons and Category:Lounges, as well as "Kneipe" or "Wirtshaus" (german), "kocsma" (Hungarian), "pivnica" (czech), etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit of an odd title, and I think "Pubs" is unambiguous and clear enough to be at the baename and used for both, but that might be different in different countries. See w:WP:ATDAB and the example of Elevator/Lift. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I think they are different things. In the UK some pubs had separate rooms, basically separated along class lines; the saloon bar (sometimes lounge bar) was up-market while the public bar had only basic appointments and intended for workers. They often had separate entrances. So I have no problem with Western saloons but perhaps Saloons should be a disambiguation page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Pubs, it's a very common description of something in UK English that is not a 'bar' (though pubs have bars and there are drinks establishments called bars in UK English too). I'm sure 'Bars' can mean something similar in American English, but as others have pointed out, Bars can be other things too, so I'm surprised it isn't already disambiguated. Sionk (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's of interest, in American English, the word bar by itself can mean many things. Even when it's understood to be referring to a place related to drinks, it can mean an establishment whose primary business is selling alcoholic drinks, a part of a larger establishment where drinks are sold/prepared (such as a bar inside of a restaurant), or even a small area in a home or at a social function (such as a wedding) where alcohol is kept and where drinks are poured/mixed. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the pubs I've been in (which is admittedly few) have served both food and drinks. Is that not the case with all pubs? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the alternative meanings for bar mentioned by Auntof6 (except the establishment itself) would apply in the UK. An additional complication surrounds those occasions when "bar" is used to mean the establishment. For instance a typical British gay bar would be a nightclub, and would emphatically not be a pub. So in the UK, gay bars are not seen as a subset of pubs. I'd imagine that in the US, gay bars are seen as a subset of bars? Similar issues will surround the other types of bar which exist in the UK, like cocktail bars and wine bars.
I'd suggest some of the renames proposed above are incorrect for UK usage: The drinking venue within a ship would be a bar, while things like stools and counters are bar (not pub) furniture.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nilfanion, Auntof6, Crouch, Swale, and Sionk: I realize the different names for alcohol drinking establishments are not synonymous. It's obvious that they have different meanings. But those differences vary greatly from place to place. I ackowledge that most people would not necessary think of certain types of "alcohol-drinking establishments" as "public houses/pubs" but unless we can accept "pubs" a catch-all term, then we need a different base category, either Category:Alcohol drinking establishments or Category:Pubs and bars. Night club-style places might dominate for "gay bars" but the term en:Gay bars is surely not limited to that definition, in the US or the UK. And surely the term "bar" in "gay bar", "wine bar" or "cocktail bar" refers to the whole place, not the drinking counter or a place for drinking within a larger location like a cruise ship. For the reasons stated above, it doesn't make sense to categorize these places by name, unless we want a multiple name category trees for each language on earth. Right now we have
And that doesn't seem to bother anyone, because everyone knows that, despite variations, pubs and bars have the same base meaning. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nightclubs and pubs are definitely distinct concepts. A gay bar is typically a nightclub, but might be something else. Having the generic gay bar category in both is problematic, as each individual establishment is one or the other. Ultimately a pub is a class of establishment, and a bar is a different class of establishment. The set union of "pub in en-gb" and "bar in en-us" is not "pubs" and is not "bars".
With regards to the furniture, that tree makes perfect sense in UK terms: A pub contains a bar, which is either a room or a distinct area in a larger room, and that is where the bar furniture is located.
Whatever the outcome of this I have a strong dislike for a combination term like "pubs and bars". That just begs for people to create the two obvious and natural subcategories, does not really capture everything in a strict sense and so is not a stable long term solution. I can live with pubs as the top-level category, but it needs to be treated with caution. And it needs to respect regional variation in the country-level categories.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that one is the typical US term and the other is the typical UK term for the same concept, as is the case with soda/pop etc. The problem is bars are a subtly different concept to pubs. A better analog might be something like "conifers" and "evergreens". To residents of the UK, its likely the trees they think of for either grouping happen to belong to both, but that doesn't mean the terms are interchangeable.
Same is true for bars/pubs and that is because both "pub" in en-gb and "bar" in en-us relate to specific aspects of their national cultures. They are not synonyms needing a single category, but are two heavily overlapping aspects of a broader concept.
The various similar concepts in other countries are not identical to either of the two English language terms. There is nothing wrong with having categories for "pubs in the UK" and "bars in the US", and the same is true for the appropriate local terms in other countries. They describe well-defined specific concept in those nations. However, a category like "pubs in Saudi Arabia" is dubious. Instead of trying to shoehorn them all into the same box, ignoring the subtle differences, just go to the higher level concept. We should embrace the differences between different nations, and acknowledge that a German gasthaus is different to an Irish pub. Category:Drinking establishments is fine.
To amplify that, calling a typical bar in NYC a "pub" would seem unnatural to Americans (what's a pub or isn't that one of those English/Irish-themed places?). It would also seem unnatural to a Brit (that's not a pub!). The same is true for calling a pub in London a "bar", it would seem wrong to both a resident Brit and a visiting American.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some bars are pubs. Some pubs are bars. That is not the same as a 1:1 correspondence. That is reinforced by your Seattle link, which implies some bars in Seattle are pubs and some are not. And what is wrong with having the already existing global term (drinking establishments) and appropriate regional names?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Establishments that serve alcoholic drinks? Establishments that primarily serve alcoholic drinks (to rule out general restaurants, for example)? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 11
IMO just "drinking establishment" is fine, its implicit that the primary purpose is to serve drink, as opposed to a restaurant which is primarily about food. The non-alcoholic aspect of this is a bit irrelevant, as a bar that only serves non-alcoholic drinks is still a bar and as such is still highly related to its alcoholic equivalents. And almost every place that sells alcoholic drinks will also sells non-alcoholic ones. Therefore, don't waste time over-complicating it :)
Appropriate regional terms can be used to avoid that clunky title. I note that in the US the phrase "bars and restaurants" appears well understood, and often has some sort of legal basis (such as the 51% law in Texas). That would suggest that in the US, "bar" may be a suitable term for all places that sell drinks and are not restaurants.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Pubs as is. Visually, pubs are - at least in Britain - very different to bars, i.e. very traditional, with old wooden floors and furniture and brick walls, sometimes also with gardens. Pubs also have an emphasis on serving pints of beer (rather than cocktails and other fancy drinks found in bars). Bars are open later, don't admit children and generally have louder music. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Category:Bars and Category:Pubs. en:Bar is a broad term for all commercial places selling beverages for on-premises consumption. Pubs are more specific to British cultural influence. The exact meaning and inference of both words will vary widely based on local customs, laws, and commercial interests, but Category:Bars as the broad category, and Category:Pubs for the British-styled definition as provided on that category seem fine to me to keep as is. Josh (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to keep a separate Bars category for the drinking places then I'd still suggest renaming to a qualified term to avoid confusion with the other types of bars. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, "pubs" are a subset of "bars" (as seen in France), just with a British (or Germanic) style, and we expect to be able to drink a choice of good beers there. Pubs are normally only indoor with a "cosy" ambiance (though they also may have terraces outdoor, open with good weather conditions). Both bars and pubs may serve food (including takeovers and fastfood in cartons, not just on a normal plate). Bars vary a lot in terms of space; they are not necessarily buildings, they may just be a dedicated place where we can find drink sometimes limited to just a piece of furniture or equipment, and bars don't necessarily have personal to serve you, they may be in self-service (see "mini" bars in hotels). They can be cabans on a beach. Or just installed in private homes, they are not necessarily commercial "establishments" (you may find bars in associations or workplaces, even if you don't find alcohol, with just some equipement in self-service, sometimes a table and maybe some chairs to sit down, and you may have to wash the glasses/cups/spoons/plates and tables yourself. So bars are not a subset of "drinking establishments", though "pubs" (that are a subset of "bars") are establishments (but also not necessarily commercial). Whever you find food or not in bars or pubs is independant. If you find food, they qualify as "restaurants", and "pubs" or "bars" that serve food commercially are called "brasseries" (very near from commercial "pubs", except that the English cosy style is not required, and you must be able to be served on table; this is not always the case with English "pubs", that don't necessarily have individual tables, just a "bar" in front of servers, the rest of the room may be for drinking in standup with your glass in the hand, or far dancing and listening music). You may or may not find music played in pubs and bars (by artists playing live, with a scene or an instrument like in "piano-bars", or with a DJ, or just a radio). So in concusion, all "pubs" are "bars", all "pubs" (but not all "bars") are "establishments". Not all pubs or bars are restaurants. All brasseries (like also fastfoods) are restaurants (the difference being the form of service for all these restaurants, but all may include takeaway service, while brassseries must include a service on table). It is then impossible to merge all these categories, they are clearly not equivalent. verdy_p (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just noticed that this discussion has been open since April 2018, and my comment above was the only contribution in almost a year. I suggest this discussion be Closed unless there is a counter argument that leaving it open is likely to generate more discussion leading to improvements in categorization. Both "Category:Pubs" and "Category:Bars" have "see also" notes to each other, and both are subsets of "Category:Drinking establishments" and "Category:Alcohol culture". This seems appropriate. As discussed above, definitions of the two terms seem to have various different nuances depending on location and culture. IMO we can wrap this discussion up, keeping both "Pubs" and "Bars" categories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the two subcats: Neither "Hungarians" nor "people of Italy" are ethnic groups. As nationality, ethnicity are highly conflictive and complex concepts, we should better find a less controversial name for this cat. E4024 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these is an issue about this category, but about what is included in it. I agree that "people of Italy" is dubious. "Hungarians" can refer either to an ethnic group or to the people of the modern country of Hungary. If it's meant in the former sense, it belongs here. - Jmabel ! talk15:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This continues to be a complex subject. I placed a referenced definition of mill, refinery and factory on: en:Beet sugar factory. Even so, I am not completely sure yet. Definitions have changed over time. In the past, many beet sugar factories did not refine their raw sugar, but in the United States all sugar factories now do refine their own sugar. The concept of refining also seems to have a meaning depending on location. In rich countries, only white sugar is considered to have been refined. Poor countries also seem to consider plantation white or turbinado sugar to have been refined. Therefore, a modern cane sugar mill/factory seems to be called a mill or factory depending on what is produces, even though modern cane mills and factories are very much the same in a technical sense. As a consequence, the western world has cane sugar mills and beet sugar factories, and poorer countries have cane sugar factories.
However, the distinction between refinery and factory is simple. I do not know of an expert reference that calls a facility that uses sugar beet or sugar cane as raw material a sugar refinery. On the other hand, both a beet sugar factory and a cane sugar mill/factory use those as raw material.Grieg2 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose to close this discussion@Themightyquill, DarwIn, Ruff tuff cream puff, and Estopedist1:
I want to close this discussion. It started with an idea to add or move to Category:Sugarcane mills (machinery) in order to make a distinction between sugar mills and sugar factories. Then there was an option to distinguish between sugar cane processing and sugar beet processing. Finally Darwin correctly noted that a factory is not the same as a refinery. However, the result is that this stale discussion blocks actions to correct the categorization.Grieg2 (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine with me. I looks like I jumped the gun and made changes before initiating discussion, or before letting it finish. Feel free to fix it however makes sense. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A facility that uses (or can use) sugar beet or sugar cane as raw material to produce sugar, is either a sugar mill or a sugar factory. This is often subject to local use of the term, or the exact process used.
A sugar refinery is a refining facility that cannot make sugar using sugar beet or sugar cane as raw material.
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The current system of categorisation for rivers and streams has only minimal description Rivers are large flowing bodies of water and Here are streams, creeks, brooks...... The assumption being that the Category:Rivers only includes named rivers (River X), (Y River) etc., and that Category:Streams contains all other creeks, brooks etc.
Discussions regarding UK rivers here and at Wikipedia here, reveals that this distinction between rivers and streams is poorly defined. Using nomenclature only causes issues, as larger streams can be longer, have a greater drainage area or flow than smaller rivers.
Large rivers such as the Nile or Amazon are not in dispute, but any attempt at distinction between smaller rivers and larger streams becomes unworkable very quickly (see here for some US examples).
It is proposed that the Rivers and Streams categories (and their sub-cats) are combined under the Rivers category (which has been the approach on en Wikipedia since 2016), or some other name such as Natural watercourses. Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I concur with the infeasibility of defining at a useful set of distinguishing characteristics for small river categories. I have decades of professional experience working as a field engineer assessing natural runoff features in areas of various geology, precipitation, and snowmelt patterns within the United States. Aside from the local dialects referring to similarly sized drainage feature as either a stream, a creek, a brook, a bayou, a swale, a draw, a gulch, or an arroyo, there is a tendency to name features in accordance with their size relative to other local drainage features. The largest local drainage in an arid region is often called a river, while drainage features carrying greater flow through moist terrain are called brooks or creeks. Catchment basin area cannot be readily determined for drainage features in flat terrain or those fed by lava tubes or limestone caves. If flow criteria were to be a differentiating factor, there would be problems deciding whether average flow, or average surface flow (neglecting subsurface flow), or average rainy season (or meltwater) flow, or peak flow should be used. Average flow is available only for drainages with a long history of measurement and subject to changes through consumptive water use or climate change, while peak flow is largely statistical approximation depending on the frequency of peak flows, and the likelihood they will destroy gaging systems. Thewellman (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging per User:Jokulhlaup and User:Thewellman. There is no clear boundary between a "river" and a "stream", and assigning one based on basin size, flow, stream order, etc., would be both arbitrary and unworkable, while a distinction based on local nomenclature arbitrarily forces images of objectively similar physical features into separate categories. --TimK MSI (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. I don't think there is an issue with just calling them all "rivers". I also want to point out that stream order specifically is unworkable. The categories are for the whole length of the river, from source to mouth. The headwaters will often have a stream order of one, but are still part of the major river.
Thanks for the ping, things have just got busy in RL at the moment, but I should have time later next week to see what is involved--Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
::@Themightyquill: given the extent of the changes that this CfD will generate, I think it would be advisable to close the discussion formally. As the nominator I don't think I should do that, are you able to close it yourself, or should I ask at COM:AN instead ?--Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot agree on merging everything into "River" is the right way, but may have weak support if it was "Rivers and streams" with a good explanation on how to ensure we don't end up with a crowded category. Big issue we will see is having Rivers, Creeks, Streams, Brooks etc all in a single category down to the state level for example. Interestingly Geographical Names Board of NSW give a very good description on Creeks, Rivers, Streams etc (sadly can't paste them due to Crown Copyright/CC-BY-ND-3.0) that it names and designates in NSW but would be similar in other Australian states and possibly some other countries. Bidgee (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would think sorting them geographically would prevent any unwanted overcrowding. Most creeks and streams can be separated down to the municipal level if necessary. Also, I don't think the descriptions at the link you cited are helpful at all. Stream is defined as "Small river, brook" and Rivulet is described as "Small stream". Those are definitions everyone knows, but they aren't good for categorizing anything since "small" is highly subjective. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To merge stream and river would be an oversimplification I think. It is a bit like deciding which plants are trees and which are shrubs or saplings. All trees start as saplings, but at some point, you cannot say exactly where, it changes from one to the other. One definition of a tree is that it is woody and you can climb it. Similarly one could conceive of a rough definition that distinguishes rivers from creeks. A river can sweep you away, for instance, but a creek usually doesn't. Or you need a bridge supported by pillars to cross a river, but at a creek some covered culverts will do. Most languages I suspect clearly distinguish between the two. In German for instance: Bach and Fluss. And there are some drainage lines that don't fall easily into these two. Desert wadis that have irregular flow: sometimes rivers, sometimes only a dry gully. And rivulets that tumble or trickle down from steep slopes may also be irregular: neither a creek or a river. JMK (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so, we need a category that encompasses all "long and narrow flowing bodies of water".
here i offer a non english speaking perspective. in non-english speaking countries you more rarely find such things named "creek" "stream" etc. we just call them all rivers when we have to translate their names.
so i think, any use of those synonyms of river is due more to local and historical reasons, rather than a rigid scientific objective definition. and even if such definitions exist, they often vary across different countries.
my suggestion:
use "rivers" as the overall parent cat.
only in certain countries where the usage of other synonyms are prevalent, there can be "creeks of the united kingdom", etc.
only if their names bear those words "creek"/"stream"/... should they be categorised under those specific cats. we dont make arbitrary definitions based on length/width/volume... but only their english names.
but all those categories with the synonyms in titles should be categorised under for example "rivers of the united kingdom".
@Bidgee: At this moment, the category Category:Creeks has a description: „Here are streams with word Creek in its name.“ Such specific scope make sense only for English-language countries, and the category name should be not confusing (Category:Streams named "creek"?). However, many of contained files and subcategories don't meet the description. Generally, Universality principle of categorization requieres to have category names universal; identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization. All non-English countries have to be reconciled with universal English terminology even though their national conceptualization can be different – thus also English-language countries should suppress their local language specifics and yield to universal terms, if possible. Naturally, distinctions between various types of watercourses are soft and blurred and can pervade and overlap. --ŠJů (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing the discussion with no consensus, keeping both category trees separate. Although many have supported the proposal to include streams under rivers, the arguments against the proposal are hard to refute. So whether a watercourse is a river or a stream is now up to the individual users. Watercourses is an unambiguous term and it may be used instead of rivers or streams. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oppose move. Everyone in the world calls the play Hamlet. The fact that a relatively few other things have the word "Hamlet" in them doesn't warrant moving: Should we also rename Category:Africa and all of its subcategories because an unincorporated community in Ohio and a boat share the name, and a tiny fraction of illiterate people might get confused? Hamlet singular should stay for the play, "Hamlets" plural should remain at Category:Hamlets. Dabification should not be the default response to any two concepts with a shared name: primary usage should also be considered. --Animalparty (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose DAB. Since category names for things are plural here on Commons, I find "Hamlets" to be sufficiently distinct. Additionally, there shouldn't be many images getting directly categorized into Category:Hamlets that might accidentally end up here. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naming conventions for "pubs" in Australia and New Zealand are different than those in Britain/Ireland - most are called "X Hotel". Renaming this category in Australia for the sake of consistency with the UK convention would create confusion for Australian users and I am not sure why the Australian nomenclature must fall into line with British use anyway. My alternate proposal - rename Category:Pubs in the United Kingdom to Category:Hotels and pubs in the United Kingdom! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the British use of "hotels" - it's the everywhere-but-Australia use. I can see that Category:Hotels in Australia is somewhat ambiguous, but this category doesn't help with that anyway, does it? Category:Pubs in Australia is surely not ambiguous to anyone in Australia. Even if it's called Hotel, if you described it as a pub, everyone (in Australia and the world over) would know what you were talking about. So there's no harm in just using "pubs". Because "Hotel" is ambiguous, both categories need descriptions pointing to the other category. They have that, and they could still have that after the move. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, although the category's text description says that the cat is for "telescopic images or photos of the view of the Moon". --Auntof6 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not all living creatures "behave" any time? One has to specify the kind of behavior to have useful categories. Jotzet (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Made for one painter, and with a wrong capitalization. If there is a consensus on having a tailor-made cat, I will correct the title. E4024 (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or first find other files and cats to fill it; "tailor-made" is the key to my CfD. No personal promotion in Commons, please. This is an education project. --E4024 (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the paintings made, files uploaded, categories created etc by the same artist/user, we have a personal promotion effort in Commons; and this is an abuse IMHO. We should control the contributions of this user under various user names. Sorry for being so transparent. --E4024 (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uncategorized cat. I do not think (as regards the info within) that this cat requires a title in French. It does not seem to be a proper name/noun. ("Properties" or "Real estate" of some family.) E4024 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is, at the moment, a single-file cat, but looking at the cat opener's uploads, there will be more material to add. --E4024 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Je suis un néophyte en matière de catégorisation. En chargeant cette photo sur le commons je ne savais pas comment faire. Cette catégorie "Properties of Marsac family" serait-elle utile ? Y aurait-il d'autres catégories qui pourraient convenir ? Une aide de votre part serait bien venue !
They are not synonymous. en:Arab cuisine refers to "the various regional cuisines spanning the Arab world, from the Maghreb to the Fertile Crescent and the Arabian Peninsula." Cuisine of Arabia, by contrast, would be just cuisine of the Arabian Peninsula (Oman, Saudia Arabia, UAE & Yemen). That said, I'm fine with deleting this and keeping Category:Arabic cuisine since there would be enormous overlap and we have no cultural subcategories of Category:Arabian Peninsula.` - Themightyquill (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: gibberish; nothing to discuss. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Done - speedily closed. Sorry. --E4024 (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree--47.151.26.64 01:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete--47.151.26.64 00:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Support But should be the 2nd choice "Port Arthur, Tasmania" as there is also w:Port Arthur, South Australia and per w:WP:NCAUST. While this is a significant heritage site, it only has a population of 251, compared to 53,818 for Port Arthur, Texas and 324,773 for the Lüshunkou District. Also the one in Texas has slightly more images that the one in Tasmania. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comment I note that the phrase "sexy nurse costume" gets 952,000 hits per google. It seems a cultural archetype rather than a personal judgement. (I tried searches for other professions in place of "nurse". "Sexy maid costume" comes in a distant second with a bit over 200,000 hits, only a handful over 100k, most under 1k if not significantly less.)-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Oppose. @Xeror: You removed File:Flag of Detroit (1976-2000).png, File:Flag of Detroit (1972-1976).png, File:Flag of Detroit.svg, File:Flag of Detroit (1976-2000).svg, File:Flag of Detroit (1948-1972).png, and File:Flag of Detroit, Michigan.png from this category outright, why? Then, you moved File:Flag of Wayne County, MI.png and File:Flag of Wayne County, Michigan.png to Category:Flags of counties in Michigan, but not to Category:Wayne County, Michigan, why not? Also, why empty this category before even starting this discussion? Furthermore, what is so wrong with having an 8-member category like this in the first place, or this specific one? What makes it "Unnecessary"? The center of the United States automobile industry, Wayne County, Michigan is a documented place with a population of 1,753,616 as of last year. It has 8 flag files and they deserve a category. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC).png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_(13958644412).jpg)
