Commons talk:Categories/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

New localities (RKBot)

Please note Special:Contributions/RKBot. -- User:Docu at 05:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many bad examples on this page

Commons:Categories provides too many bad examples, inciting newcomers to continue crowding crowded categories instead of using subcategories. I corrected a few, changing "Paris" (crowded) into "Black and white photographs of Tour Eiffel" (not so crowded), "Helicopters" (crowded) into "Eurocopter HH-65 Dolphin"(not so crowded). But there are still problems. Both "Ursus maritimus" and "Icebergs" are crowded categories. We should not tell people to put files directly into them. Teofilo (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower is a good sample as its category description page has a fairly extensive list of subcategories. You might want to use Category:Looking_up_the_center_of_the_Eiffel_Tower as a sample as it's less likely that additional subcategories apply too.
As we try to sort helicopters by aircraft registration, even the Eurocopter category isn't as specific as it gets, so the general helicopter category could do for that sample. -- User:Docu at 02:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People should not be told to put files directly into Category:Eiffel Tower because it is too crowded. Additional subcategories like "from North", "from West", should be created. In the end, it should be a meta-category with no file categorized direclty in it. The polar bears should be subcategorized by location (the name of the Island, or the Sea), and perhaps by month. Icebergs should be subgategorized at least by Sea. Teofilo (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Eiffel Tower, I agree that placing files in subcategory is preferable, but switched to the subcategory mentioned earlier. The problem with B&W is that it isn't really a topical subcategory.
For the second sample, I think it's easier to read with more general categories. Adding aircraft registrations in there would be probably be overdoing it and I think it's already great if a user adds four clearly distinct categories. -- User:Docu at 01:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As we disagree, I am asking for additional opinions at COM:VP#Telling newcomers to crowd general keyword categories. Teofilo (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good luck. Not too sure what you are asking about there, but Martin tried to help you at Category talk:Ursus maritimus‎. -- User:Docu at 11:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just change the example? I'd suggest something like Category:Double-decker trains in Germany instead of Category:Trains. --Sebari (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Comic Book Categories

Right now, we have Category:Comics creators, Category:Comics artists, Category:Comic book creators, etc, as well as their subcategories. Can these be merged? I'd like to move them all to Comic book creators, since that's the one with the largest number of files and subcats, but I'd like to know what you think. And if anyone think comic "book" is too specific, can that title be changed/moved to Comics creators? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category with Subcategory, Page and Media

Category:Aerial lifts contains a Subcategory + Pages + Media, but in all items there are pictures (in Media also some drawings). What is the meaning of Page and Media or rather, what is the difference to Subcategory? Or is this creative overcategorization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHert (talk • contribs)

I'd rather suggest you to discuss such topics here. There are more people around than on this talk page. --High Contrast (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am on my way. --AHert (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again: By year categories

After a discussion with User:J 1982 I opened this topic, meanwhile archived, on the Village Pump. As a result, I nominated the category it all started with for deletion. There I found hardly any response, other than from the user who made the category. We both had one single supporter each. And... I was advised to turn to this place to start the discussion all over again. After a sigh and a little break, because I do not like to keep harming about a topic at several places, I decided to give it one more try. The preliminary work has been done at the indicated places. Additional, the village pump had a related discussion short before I started mine. So, what policy does common have concerning small by-year categories, what policy should it have and how, if "does have" and "should have" are not the same, could that be established? I consider my peronal opinion as clear enough, but I am eager to know how commons in general thinks about this. Hoping I finally found the right place, Hettie (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing has happened for more than one month, and they are still in use, I think it's time to keep them. J 1982 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There did happen quite a lot actually at the Village Pump. That though is not the place where categories are being deleted. On the place where such a thing does happen, there is hardly anybody present to take part in the discussion. The same seems to be the case here. Keeping these categories (and even extending their number, I fear) should not be understood as a decision we make based on the situation that "nothing happens", but rather as accomplished fact based on the same situation. Hettie (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, they are still created for other countries, and I see no problems. Keep. J 1982 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a problem with those categories. It is true that we could wait to get more images before creating them, but we hopefully will need them eventually. --Jarekt (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think some thought should be given about the topics being sub-categorized that way and how they relate to other categories on the same topic. A category by year shouldn't be a substitute to more detailed topical categorization. If categories by year are done, it seems normal that you end up with 1 image in the category for 1982 and maybe 500 in the category for 2010. -- User:Docu at 11:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We used to have some general guidance about when to create subcategories, e.g., that categories should contain 10 to 100 images. Single image categories are too small because they must be opened one by one to see just one image. Categories of more than 100 images are laborious to examine. Does anyone know why that guidance was deleted? Or do I misremember the history of this project page? Also, how do you search by category intersection (see Docu's comment above)? Why doesn't the default search engine have a "search current category" option? Category:1704 in Spain does not seem very useful to me and Category:1994 in Honduras only slightly more so. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monuments, Memorials and partly Sculptures

May has been discussed earlier?: those often are the same. Is a monument not normally a memorial - beside nature ones ? Does it makes sense to build up seperate cat-trees (by country/location/city, subject, shape, ... - down to the final monument) ? --Wistula (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to separate the three phenomenons, as long as you consider "monuments" as valuable buildings (houses, mills, castles), and "memorials" as sculptures or plaques which aim to remember a memorable event. While "sculptures" sometimes are ment to be a memorial, and sometimes a piece of art.
As it comes to separating each of the three by city, subject and shape (or, why not, by year)... I'd say that only makes sense if a category would become too big without such a separation. Hettie (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
pls have a look at Category:Monuments by commemoration and the sub-cat Category:Monuments by event. Quite a colorful mix of monument- and memorial-cats. But is a monument by commemoration not always a memorial, as a memorial is not only about events but about people too, or ? Is a memorial than not better generally a sub-cat of monument ? --Wistula (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. What a mess. And I think you are right: these objects are mostly the memorial-kind of monuments. But then... is a memorial always a sub-cat of "monument"? What about gravestones. They are memorials, but are they monuments? Some of them are indeed, but I would not say that a graveyard is filled with monuments. It is filled with memorials. So I'd say there is some overlap between "monument" and "memorial", but that memorials are not always a manifestation of a monument. Thus I fear they should be separate categories. But it all starts with some notice about how to define the concepts. Hettie (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have often been troubled by the distinction, or lack thereof, between the memorial and monument category trees (sculptures are an entirely different animal, although sometimes sculptures may also be monuments/memorials). I'm not sure that I buy Hettie's distinction between the two, esp. since memorials is usually the parent category and monuments the subcat (so memorials are, therefore, arguably more than just plaques, etc.). For awhile, I distinguished between the two as follows: "monuments" are the traditional statues, triumph columns, arches, cenotaphs, etc., while memorial is the broader term that encompasses monuments, as well as memorial gardens, etc. (this view seems supported somewhat by the note at the top of the memorials category that states: "'Memorial' is a very broad term. Most things referred to as 'memorials' are more specifically 'monuments'."). However, the fact that the categories are such a mess suggests that not everyone shares that view.

We need to bring some order to these categories, because it does make it difficult to find anything. My own view is that memorials should remain the broader parent cat., while monuments should be the more specific subcat limited to structures and buildings. However, I am open to any solution that provides a practical distinction between the two. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or is the simplest solution simply to decide that there is so much overlap that the two trees be merged into Category:Monuments and memorials? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Skeezix1000, what would you call valuable buildings such as houses, mills and castles? I would say they are a "monument", but not as a subcat of "memorial". And they do not at all fit in your definition of a monument. Category:Monuments in the Netherlands is filled with mostly these kind of monuments. I can see that they are a subcat of "memorials in The Netherlands", but I consider that somewhat ludicrous. In fact, I think that your concept of a monument (traditional statues, triumph columns, arches, cenotaphs...) is exactly that what I would call a memorial. My failing conduct of the English language could be causing this, except that the word "memorial" seems to refer to "remembrance" or "memory", which would lead to the assumption that it has something to do with the function of aches, plaques, obelisks etc, more than with houses, mills and castles. Therefore I see a memorial as a subcat of a monument (or better: as a separate cat since - as I stated above - some memorials are not a monument), and certainly not the other way round. Hettie (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hettie, when you talk about "valuable buildings", do you mean buildings and/or properties that have been designated for their historic/heritage value?

I also think, Hettie, that you hit the nail on the head -- part of the problem is that this is a multilingual project, using English for the category trees, and the translations of monument and memorial vary in meaning among languages and the meanings even vary among English-speaking regions. So, I think the categorisation will benefit tremendously if we adopt a clear distinction between these categories, even if it ends up being somewhat arbitrary. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Skeezix1000, "designated for their historic/heritage value" is what I mean. Would those kind of buildings be monuments subcategorized under memorials, memorials subcategorized under monuments, independent monuments, independent memorials... or is there a classification for these things I am not aware of?
And yes, I do think that part of the problem is caused by different definitions in different languages and/or cultures. (I love, for instance, the German difference between a "Mahnmal" and a "Denkmal", which I do not know in any other language. The German Mahnmal does not have any interwiki's at all.) Hettie (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it is a language problem (this time): How I remember it
Not sure what to do to solve it right now, but at least agree about the definition and complete the documentation. --Foroa (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hettie, those fall under Category:Cultural heritage monuments - note that Category:Cultural heritage monuments by country allows for subcategorisation for each country using the nomenclature specific to each jurisdiction.

Foroa, I had looked at those en-wiki articles and they are all over the map. The lead to the monument article defines monuments as one would memorials, and addresses structures that are normally not monumental (e.g. statues). Neither article is sourced. Having said that, the distinction you've made is an interesting one, esp. the note you made that not all monuments are necessarily memorials. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Foroa: conc definitions- different meanings in different languages will make that a tricky task - though a very important one. The German Gedenkstätte with the Interwiki Memorial and vice versa isn't the same. I hardly believe that anybody in Germany will call a gravestone a “Gedenkstätte” (which is highlighted in the english article), one may would call a complete cemetry as “Gedenkstätte” .
@Skeezix1000: there is no Category:Monuments and memorials (could be a solution) at Commons yet, but a Category:Monuments and memorials [1] in en:WP. Which might be the result of similiar problems ?
And here is a funny one: Category:Military monuments is a sub-cat of Category:Military memorials and cemeteries and vice versa. Category:War Cemeteries (I believe, a war cemetery always is a war memorial, with or without a seperate monument (or to say: memorial ?), or ?) is not a sub-cat of both of them. But has a sub-cat Category:Cemeteries of World War II, which is a sub to Category:Military memorials and cemeteries. I would try to get that in a better order, but will wait now for general solution about monuments/memorials/.. --Wistula (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened up the Oxford dictionary, which defines the terms as follows:

Monument

  1. anything enduring that serves to commemorate or make celebrated, esp. a structure or building.
  2. a stone or other structure placed over a grave or in a church etc. in memory of the dead.
  3. an ancient building or site etc. that had survived or been preserved.
  4. (foll. by of, to) a typical or outstanding example (a monument of indiscretion).
  5. a lasting reminder.
  6. a written record.

Memorial

  1. an object, institution or custom established in memory of a person or event.
  2. (often in pl) hist. a statement of facts as the basis for a petition etc.; a record; an informal diplomatic paper.
  3. adjective - intending to commemorate a person or thing.

Is it fair to say that a monument is the physical structure (gravestone, building, arch, etc.), while a memorial is the broader term that includes monuments, but also includes other commemorations such as events, etc.? And what about the point Foroa made, which as noted in the en-wiki article on monuments: "Functional structures made notable by their age, size or historic significance can also be regarded as monuments." (these would be the monuments that aren't necessarily memorials, such as the Great Wall of China). How do we reconcile this into a clear category framework? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wistula, I threw up my arms in confusion a few months ago when I saw how badly war memorials were categorized. You are right to note that that particular area is in dire need of some sort of clean-up.

I note that "war memorials" are going to add to the confusion -- while normally and colloquially described as memorials, they would appear (based on the definitions above) to fall into the more specific definition of "monuments".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeezix1000, I think that buildings designated for their historic/heritage value indeed are "Cultural heritage monuments". That would be: a monument, subcategorized under "cultural heritage monument". Thus, a memorial can not be a broader term that includes monuments. As you mentioned: the Great Wall of China is a (cultural heritage) monument, but it is not a memorial.
Adding Cultural heritage monuments to the discussion though does not end the matter, but makes confusion even bigger. Opening Category:Cultural heritage monuments, the first thing I see is the "Angel de reforma". A memorial. And a monument. And, I assume, a cultural heritage monument.
Categorizing the objects it might be possible that a monument and a memorial are separate categories on the same level, instead of subcats of eachother. Thus it will be inevitable that some pictures will be categorized under both "monument" and "memorial", but I think that could be acceptable.
I don't quite follow you by the way when you say that war-monuments are, given the definition above, more likely to be "monuments" then "memorials". Aren't they an object, established in memory of an event? I would even say that war-cemeteries fall under that definition. Hettie (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a war-cemetery is a memorial itself (I agree), how would you call the obelisk (with some plaques on it) in the middle at the cemetery. That is - imo - a monument by shape (obelisk) and by commemoration (events -> wars -> ...). Sounds a bit strange, if that would be a memorial in the memorial ?? --Wistula (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... it does't sound all that strange to me. There is a war cemetery close to the place where I live, which contains several separate memorials for separate regiments, and other memorials covering them all. I would call them memorials, and I would call the whole cemetery a memorial. Are all those memorial a monument as well? No. The cemetery as a whole is not a monument. Neither are the separate gravestones. They are an example of a memorial which is not a monument (as opposed to the Great Wall of China, which is a monument without being a memorial). But some memorials on that place can be considered a monument as well. Those should be categorized as both monument and memorial. And will as such be a memorial in a memorial. Hettie (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
War memorials are by their very definition monuments. The fact that colloquially they are referred to more often as memorials doesn't mean that they are not also monuments (in fact, they are often referred to as such as well). In order to clarify the point under discussion, I think we need to focus less on the particularities and oddities of colloquial usage, and focus instead on first principles (i.e. plain English-language meanings). Having looked back at all of the comments we have made, it occurs to me that we have two non-exclusive sets: some monuments are memorials, some monuments are not memorials, and vice versa. Part of the confusion arises because the word monuments has three main distinct meanings.

In English, a monument that commemorates a person or event is a memorial. The terms are used interchangeably (as evidence by the OED quoted above) - I live near a park in Toronto that contains 3 war memorials - two of which are called memorials, one of which is called a monument (there is no reason for the distinction - it simply results from the names they were given when dedicated). Certain types of monuments are more often referred to as monuments, and others more often as memorials, but usage isn't exclusive and both terms are widely understood to apply to the same physical structures.

However, the term memorial is broader than the term monument, as a memorial can be a physical structure (as is a monument), but need not be - you can have memorials in the form of runs, scholarships, certain holidays, poems, etc., all of which can also commemorate a person or event. (You can also have memorial gardens and/or trees - while they are physical objects, they are not typically thought of as monuments, unless they are accompanied by physical structures). That's why, as far as commemorative objects go, memorial is the broader term - it encompasses monuments (all monuments that commemorate a person or event are memorials), but also includes non-physical commemorations.

However, in English, the word monument is also broader than just memorials (as Hettie has noted). A monument can also refer to a cultural heritage monument (as seen in the OED definitions above). It's a bit of an anomoly, as some cultural heritage monuments are memorials (and some aren't), and some have become memorials over time. If you examine the reasons for designation of any cultural heritage monument, it is inevitably because they are representive of an architectural style, symbolic of a historical event, evocative of a period in history, etc. or they are the last (or among the last) remaining example of their type. While such cultural heritage monuments may not have originally been built as memorials, they are designated and protected in modern day because they commemorate an event, a person, an architectural period, a historical period or movement, etc. - i.e. they function very much like memorials, even if we don't normally use that term to refer to them. For the purposes of this discussion, however, let's just keep it simple, and assume that culture heritage monuments are monuments, but not memorials.

The other meaning of monument in English is to refer to something large ("monumental"). For example, on my drive to my hometown, I always pass by a big apple on the side of the highway - it is located next to an apple orchard that sells pies, etc. The apple is clearly not a memorial, but it is referred to as a road-side monument.

So, I think the situation we have is as follows:

My poor attempt at graphics

How do we create a category scheme that adequately captures all the subjects shown in the diagram? I think it would be disastrous to simply say that those objects found in the intersect of the two circles can be categorized as monuments and memorials, because it would lead to the same levels or confusion and poor categorisation that we have today. I will give it some thought. Apologies for being so long-winded. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Backing up for a moment, have I accurately captured the various meanings in the venn diagram above? Anything I missed? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Skeezix1000, your diagram is great. It helps a lot to draw such a thing when so many words are already said. The only objection I have is your statement that war memorials are by their very definition monuments. If that is so, then I have to conclude that these gravestones are not memorials at all. Because the idea that they are monuments at the same time (which they have to be if your statement is true) is quite absurd. (In Dutch the term "monument" nor "memorial" is used for these things, by the way. They are referred to as "gravestones". But of you would ask if they were memorials at the same time, people would agree.) Hettie (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be complete (beside some rather rare topics like animal memorials, natural monuments, .. - which shouldnt be considered actually to have it not too complicated) - good job ! Your scetch shows the joint area as a smaller part - I believe, in fact it is by far the biggest. That is why I agree with you: it is not a suitable solution to have here parallel categorization-trees as memorial (by location, by year, by commemoration, by stile, ...) and monument (by location, by year, by commemoration, by stile, ...).
Although not every memorial is a monument by commemoration, a monument by commemoration per definition seems to be a memorial. So to get back to your initial proposal for a joint category Category:Monuments and memorials with a definition declaring all commemorative monuments as memorials, with following subcats more or less like mentioned in your scetch: Subcat:Monumental objects, Subcat:Cultural heritage monuments, Subcat:Memorials with the Sub2cat:Physical memorials (to be devided into: ... by shape, which would include Sub3cat:landscape memorials - trees, gardens etc), Sub2cat:non-physical memorials. --Wistula (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hettie, I'm not clear what point you are making with the gravestones at the military cemetery in Grebbeberg. Why wouldn't they be memorials? But putting that aside for a moment, yes, they are monuments. One definition of monument is "a stone or other structure placed over a grave". And this type of monument is a memorial, because it commemorates a person. While I agree with you completely that some people may not think of gravestones as monuments (and, as we have both agreed, many people across the world will have differing ideas as to what constitutes a monument or memorial), we can't just ignore the simple, basic English-language definitions. Plus, I think many people would agree that any memorial in physical form is a monument.

Wistula, I agree that the joint/overlap area would be the biggest. And I think you are correct -- we probably need to go the Category:Monuments and memorials route, because as Hettie and I have discovered, the concepts overlap and there are differing views as to what each one entails. As you briefly set it our above, it would still allow us to maintain subcategories like Category:War memorials, without needing to delve into whether a war memorial is a monument or not. There is a reason why en-wiki chose Category:Monuments and memorials for their category name, and we appear to have stumbled upon it -- there is no other evident solution! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeezix1000, the definition is "a stone or other structure placed over a grave". Not "any stone or other structure placed over a grave". These white military graveyard stones were mass-produced in Europe, after the first and the second world war. You will find hectares covered with them in Northern France, for instance. It would be rather out of proportion to call them a monument, regardless how the Oxford-dictionary defines a monument. (My reaction that they are no memorials was an answer to your statement that "war memorials are by their very definition monuments". If that is true, which I doubt, the statement that these gravestones are war memorials can not be true.)
You could opt for a Category:Monuments and memorials, but would that mean that the first subcats will be Category:Monuments and Category:memorials? If you do so, you might classify monuments under Category:Monuments, memorials under Category:memorials and objects which are both under Category:Monuments and memorials. That would not render judgement though to Skeezix1000's diagram, because as we see Category:Monuments and Category:memorials should not be subordinate to Category:Monuments and memorials, but coordinate. We will reach that coordinate level when we do not classify any objects directly under Category:Monuments and memorials, but only under Category:Monuments and Category:memorials, while accepting that some objects will be classified in both categories. Would that be acceptable though? Hettie (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider temporary memorials such as this, which I think would not be called monuments. - Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long delay in commenting, but I thought I would let some time pass to see if anyone else had an opinion. It appears what has been suggested is non-controversial. So, are we in agreement then, that Category:Monuments and memorials is the way to go? To answer Hettie's question above, given the issues we have identified above, I wouldn't bother trying to then subcategorize into separate memorial and monument subcategories, as we would just be recreating the problems we have now. I would all the subcats along the same "Monument and memorial" lines, except where one of the two terms is more widely recognized as being the correct one for a particular type of monument/memorial (e.g. Monumental objects, Cultural heritage monuments, War memorials, etc.). Does that make sense? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... very fine with me. Have fun ! --Wistula (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I started the switch of the main categories. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance sought: Category:Structures

Resolved

I've been trying to disperse Category:Structures and have it down from hundreds of images to 11 at present count. The remaining ones, I'm not sure quite what to do with. Anyone else want to take a shot? - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone followed through and dealt with this, though I don't know the details of what they did. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forts vs Fortresses

Category:Forts in Italy and Category:Fortresses in Italy. No definition neither, no discussion yet. What is the (practical) difference/idea behind ? --Wistula (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Add: Fort is a Fortress by type (Category:Fortresses by type). From my (German/Polish) p-o-v I wouldn't agree with that definition, believe a fort to be smaller part of a bigger fortification (often seperated by a few kilometers), while a fortress is the bigger (central unit) one. Talking about 18th and 19th century constructions. But I guess, that tree has been discussed and agreed already in the past, still: I can't see, how that actually works for the Italian categories. --Wistula (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a native English speaker, I would say that a "fortress" is always a single well-fortified structure. The term is slightly archaic, and not likely to be applied to a modern structure, except metaphorically.

"Fort" is a broader term. It can be anything from a simple wooden structure (as used in the American West during the Indian wars) to a major military base or post (and, oddly, not even necessarily a fortified base: e.g. Fort Hood, Fort Knox, Fort Worden).

But that doesn't answer anything about what make useful categories. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a native multi-cultural European, I have yet a slightly different understanding of Wistula in that a fort is smaller part of a fortification (which I would call Fortress), which seems confirmed by the category structure Fortressess -> forts by type -> forts. If one googles ""fortress Europe", the term fortress does not seem that archaic. Anyway, as happens more, finding that out afterwards is taken significant energy. I noticed that a lot of subcats are categorised on both sides, just to make sure to get the right one. --Foroa (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fortress Europe" is metaphorical use, and does not refer to a literal structure. As I noted above, the metaphorical use is not archaic (but it's irrelevant to our categorization). - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well to me (this viewpoint to an extent supported by the en.wp article on Fortifications), a fortress is typically a large-scale fortification (which may or may not have smaller components), such as a fortified city. On the other hand, a fort is a much broader term: In terms of strict fortifications, both very large sites (garrison over 10,000) and very small such as Martello towers (garrison ~25) can be described as forts.
This suggests Category:Forts should be the top level category, with Category:Fortresses being a sub-type (small forts are not fortresses, but all fortresses could realistically be called forts).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nilfanion's suggestion seems reasonable, if "fortress" is useful at all in our category scheme. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 Persons with the same name

The singer of both Kent and Hardcore Superstar are named Joakim Berg (two different persons). The category Joakim Berg contains a few photos of the Kent singer and I have a few of the Hardcore superstar singer that I don't know how to categorize. Could the categories be named "Joakim Berg (Kent)" and "Joakim Berg (Hardcore Superstar)" as the Swedish articles about them or how should this be handled? Averater (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion sounds perfectly appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 05:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,thanks. But now I have two more questions. Should the two Joakim Berg categories be contained in one Joakim Berg category or should there be no Joakim Berg category and only the two different Joakim Berg categorys? And how is the current Joakim Berg category renamed to Joakim Berg (Kent)? Averater (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that I should write in the summary that I had more questions... So please help me with those above.Averater (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the first question, you might want to look at Category:Vals
For the second question, see Commons:Categories#Renaming_or_moving_categories.  Docu  at 08:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Averater (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hidden" categories that are not hidden

If a hidden category includes subcategories rather than images, the category isn't really hidden, but appears with the label "Hidden category:". Sample: Category:Jimmy Wales has a second line in the category list that includes "People by name".

To fix the label on categories, I'd amend the displayed text to, e.g., "Index, maintenance, and non-topical categories".  Docu  at 11:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the corresponding change for MediaWiki:Hidden-categories at MediaWiki talk:Hidden-categories.  Docu  at 06:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Naming categories

I note that at least one user has been cranking out meta categories left and right, without the parent category being in need of dispersion. This introduces (in my experience) unnnecessary complexity. For example Category:Categories by zoo is redundant with Category:Animals in zoos by class and more particularly with Category:Animals in zoos (contents of the first two could for the time being simply be in the latter, piped with "|*[name]" like "Horses" are), and we also now have naming nightmares like Category:Animals in zoos by zoo name (why not put the content simply in "Animals in zoos", unpiped? Note also the caveat at "Animals in zoos by zoo name", which indicates that there was no technical need for creation of this meta category). In addition, "Animals in zoos by zoo name" and Category:Animals in zoos by country are mutually inconsistent (former is parent to 26 "Animals in [zoo name]", latter is grandparent to only 21. Where are the other 5?). If the content becomes too much, we can simply break it down (first by geographical region, then by country for example).

I believe that such edits are unconstructive for two reasons: First, by introducing subcategories without need and pre-empting a category scheme to which future additions of content need not necessarily agree. Second, by employing the "Naming categories" proposal so rigidly as to create names that are confusing to people with poor English, to whom we need to be accessible.

But the main problem is that this constitutes wholesale adoption of a proposed guideline (it explicitly says "References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"."), and one where a consensus does not seem to exist - on the contrary! In 2010 year, there has only been one batch of technical edits to the proposal, and the Talk page is inactive since DEC-23-2009. Several people have pointed out there that the proposal has considerable flaws, and with my semiprofessional experience with set theory and the English language and such things, I believe the last "rule" ("sorting order") is unworkable (when meta subsets overlap, no hierarchy can be established); in short, to implement the scheme out of hand runs danger of causing a w:pigeonholing problem of unprecedented scale (namely the problems #1 and #5 as listed there seem to apply).

  • Can anyone confirm that establishing meta categories without need for dispersal within parent category is generally in line with category policy?
  • Can anyone confirm that the naming rules on "Naming categories" override COM:C#Category names?
  • If neither is confirmed, can anyone please tag Commons:Naming categories with {{Inactive}}? I cannot edit the page because in the course of the debate someone has put a lock on it and not bothered to remove it.
  • Optional: Can anyone fix the mess in the example above by reverting as outlined above? For example:
  1. Subcategories of Category:Animals in zoos by class go in Category:Animals in zoos, and are piped with "|*[name]"
  2. Subcats of Category:Animals in zoos by zoo name go in "Animals in zoos" or the respective country subcategory
  3. Category:Categories by zoo and the other two meta-categories are abolished; "Animals in zoos by country" is treated as an animals-by-country metacategory (as opposed to "by zoo name", "by zoo" and "by class", "by country" is a fully established and working meta-category and should be used first and foremost).
We can still reintroduce a full meta scheme as soon as the parent category is in need of dispersal. The advantage will be that by that time, it will be obvious what meta categories to apply. (This is a big problem with adding meta categories if no need for dispersal exists - this creates a scheme which may be unsuitable to future content. Only if we have a decent sample of content in a category, we can tell how best to sub/metacategorize it; see for example Category:Birds of São Paulo where the subcategories are born of necessity and were not immediately obvious)

Thanks. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that {{metacat}} includes a link to a section in "Naming categories":
This meta category should only contain other categories. Files should either be in the relevant subcategory or in the parent category.
I am not sure if it is appropriate to link to mere proposal which got bogged down in dispute and hasn't progressed since 11 months in such an "official" way. But I have no idea how to fix that.
Perhaps someone who is outside the dispute yet knowledgeable about categories can copy-paste an uncontroversial bit of the proposal (using "by country" as an example perhaps) to the main Categories page (new subsection below "Major categories") and link to there instead. Perhaps pointing out that these "rules" are inofficial and outline how meta-categories can be created if need be, but that they should not be created simply "because they can".
(I am under the impression that the proliferation of meta categories with awkward names and no good purpose is at least partly due to editors checking out the "meta category" link, getting to the section, and believing this is official/mandatory policy, because the header and discussion of "Naming categories" is skipped by the link; unless you scroll up you won't note the nonofficial status) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no time to elaborate more, but the proliferation of (meta) categories is a major problem on Commons, while we have not really found a means to avoid that. I do agree with your zoo example, and most categories in Category:Categories by name (flat list) are overlapping with other categories (most rivers and lakes by name are nearly empty since several months), but even worse, they become completely inconsistent as some people drop their items in one of the categories, while forgetting the others. It is for example next to impossible to check the correct and consistent categorisation in Category:Rivers of France and its many meta-cats (by name, by department, by region). Over time, we certainly will need tools to check on that, or with a bit of luck, most meta categories should be filled automatically.
I guess that many people are attracted to use meta categories because they think that because no images should arrive there, they will get a "maintenance free" category. After all, for most intermediate categories, people would like them to be image free, so they try to invent "work-arounds" --Foroa (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that someone has been making too many zoo meta-categories containing an incomplete structure, but do not forget the usefulness of meta-cats when used properly. I spent quite a long time making Category:Zoos in the United States by state (a meta-cat), which I think works well in parallel with Category:Zoos in the United States (a flat list), and I think this has been a useful addition. I think that meta-categories are important for indexing and navigation on commons especially for categories containing numerous sub-categories; see Category:People by name. In contrast, in Category:Birds of South America the flat list for "Birds of South America" has been disrupted by bird species being placed in sub-categories and so removed from the main category, and I think that this is an example where a metacat would be useful. If it was changed to "Category:Birds endemic to South America by region" (a metacat) and "Category:Birds of South America", then the species for "Category:Sephanoides fernandensis" could be in the metacat structure (in "Category:Birds of Chile") and also in the flat list of "Category:Birds of South America". Comments can also be made at :Category talk:Birds of South America for suggestions on this particular category. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the main creator of the current metacat template and "flat list" categories, I feel that I should speak up here. I totally agree that we arehave been getting carried away with these metacats. In defense of the flat list ones, they are helpful for us in maintaining and assessing our metacat system, basically take very little maintenance themselves as they are entirely created (or depopulated) via template, and don't interfere with the regular category tree, however, I fear they may also be encouraging unnecessary new metacats. Maybe in the future, when we get our normal hierarchical meta-categories in shape, we can do away with them completely. A good way to look at meta-categories is that they are for alternate ways of subcategorization. You have to choose the most logical form of subcategorization for the main tree and focus on that instead of creating more and more metacats. Regarding the link in the template, it is to explain what a metacat is, not when one should be created. Maybe that section can be moved to a help page instead; the only guideline/policy part of it is the specific words to use in the name (to avoid inconsistency with using similar words that mean the same, although the complete list simply tells you what exists without instructing or specifying which words are preferred). Rocket000 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely in favor of establishing a "flat" and "sparse" (2 or even 3 levels) meta-category whenever appropriate.
Rocket000, what about changing the MetaCat template to redirect not to the proposal page but to a section on the main category page (as per what I wrote above)?
Would that be OK for everyone? I find for example Category:Birds by country absolutely indispensable, and Category:Birds by region seems to tie in well with the overall biogeographic scheme others are establishing (see e.g. Category:East Tropical Africa. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratcatchers or Rat guards

To block on board coming of rats a special tool is used. Pictures can be found at:

  • Category:Ratcatchers
  • Category:Rat guards

Being a not-native speaker of the English language, I have a question: are both categories correct? I assume that these two categories have to be combined. But under which category? --Stunteltje (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance requested - people category rules

Regarding Commons:Categories#People, does this suggest that every person whose picture is on Commons should have a person category? Or just the ones who have or are likely to have many photos of them included at Commons? I'm going to be populating Category:Members of the Iowa House of Representatives and Category:Iowa State Senators and there are several "person categories" with just one or two entries (I'll be adding an additional image to each of them, but that's it). Is this the intended use of such categories? When I upload the images (no more than one or two per person) should I create a sub-category for each person or just dump them in the "main" categories? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the person in the picture is identified and likely to get an article in one of the Wikipedia, it's not a problem if you create a category. Obviously, you don't have to do that, you could just put them in a category such as Category:Members of the Iowa House of Representatives  Docu  at 05:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one encapsulates a picture in a category, it can be sorted by name and appear as a proper "list" item in several category lists. Separate pictures (without file naming conventions) tend to disappear in the mass and are not accepted in most meta categories. A category can exist for one picture without problem. On the other hand, if a category exist, a new picture of the same person can be dropped in the category without having to worry of its various categories. --Foroa (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume category:ships is a good example. A single picture is just categorised by country and IMO or ENI number. Unless something happens (e.g. capsizing of the Fairplay 22) because in that case she can also be found with a single picture in her category:ships by name. Otherwise only two or more pictures get an own category by name, where she was built, by function and so on. IMO and ENI numbers group the pictures to make this possible. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My rule of thumb is that if there are two or more photos of the individual, I create a category. I will also sometimes create a category where there is currently only one image of the individual, but the subject is of sufficient importance (demonstrated by articles on various Wikis) and fits into a relatively large number of categories that it makes sense to create a separate category for that person.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and create the sub-categories too, then. Thanks! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help

This image is classified under the category Category:Ford Bronco (3rd generation), but it is a 2nd generation Bronco. Is there a way to manually remove this incorrect category? —Reelcheeper (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go to the image and click "edit". --  Docu  at 07:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --High Contrast (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you learned how to do it. --  Docu  at 10:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have analyzed incorrectly. The edit was proceeded by me not by the person that posted the question above. --High Contrast (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for changing that for me, it didn't show any categories when I tried to edit it. —Reelcheeper (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how important is it for the image creator to put a category on?

Is it like wikipedia, where some gnome will take care of it for me, or is it super important for me to do?TCO (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important for the uploader to insert some (good and correct) categories. There is no Bot that could do this properly. --High Contrast (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We get far more new images than Wikipedia gets new articles, and there are fewer people here to monitor them, so while some "gnome" may eventually get there, it is far less likely than on Wikipedia. Also, unless you give a decent description, it can be very hard for someone else to add appropriate categories (e.g. it is very hard to guess the geographic location of most photos). It's not a disaster if your categories are a bit coarse (e.g. not knowing the exact species of a flower, or not knowing the height of a skyscraper), but if you at least get them in at least some broad categories, there is a much better chance that someone with knowledge of the topic will find them and add some precision. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias. Will add some categories for my turtle pics.TCO (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For animals, plants etc, I usually use the following:
  • scientific name (or "Unidentified ..." if the species is unknown)
  • locality (precise)
  • "[Organism type] of [country/region]" (e.g. Birds of Kenya). This can be combined with the precise locality, e.g. Category:Birds of Serengeti National Park ("Serengeti" is a region in more than one country, thus it is also listed here)
  • anything else that might be appropriate
See for example File:African Fish-Eagle (Haliaeetus vocifer) calling from tree, dorsal view.jpg or File:Polls de Parus caeruleus al niu a Olost.jpg. Note that the latter would use "Category:Birds of Catalonia" instead of "Birds of Spain" and "Animals of Catalonia" as soon as someone creates that category. But as we don't have it yet, it uses the two categories.
In a hurry, simply using the scientific name and "[Organism type] of [country/region]" should be enough; we can fix the rest eventually. That way, only two categories will make the content accessible from both the biological and the geographic sub-tree (which are the two categories that apply to all such content).

deutsche Sprache

Leider kann ich nur etwas Schulenglisch, daher meine Frage: Gibt es die Möglichkeit die Artikel und Kategorien in deutscher Sprache anzeigen zu lassen? Ich kann sonnst weder etwas finden noch etwas richtig einordnen. Mit freundlichen Grüßen--Ronaldino 10:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ich fürchte da siehts Momentan mau aus... aber vielleicht nützt dir das ein wenig. Die Übersetzung ist zwar nicht Akkurat, aber ich glaube auch nicht das schlechteste. Im Notfall kannst du auch in die Dorf Pumpe Kommen und fragen, welche Kategorien angebracht wären. --Stefan-Xp 10:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ich hab übrigens Commons:Kategorien erstellt, vielleicht kannst du auch noch ein wenig mithelfen... --Stefan-Xp 12:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Schnelle aber etwas dreckige Lösung: leg unter dem deutschen Begriff eine Seite an die entweder eine Umleitung zur Kategorie ist oder eine Umleitung zur/Übersetzung der englischen Seite (wenn es eine solche gibt). Dann sind die Dateien über die Suchfunktion leicht zugänglich.
Man kann das beliebig ausbauen; John feather hat das mit den nicht-englischen Seiten vor einigen Jahren ziemlich umfassend genutzt. Ist zwar mittlerweile teilweise veraltet, aber Tatsache ist, daß ein Japaner der Bilder von einem ヨーロッパオオライチョウ (Auerhahn) sucht, weder den englischen Namen ("Western Capercaillie") noch den wissenschaftlichen (Tetrao urogallus) kennen muß. Nicht im Sinne der Erfinder, aber es funktioniert. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thirteen Colonies in the 1700s, etc.

Russbot has moved content from Category:United States in the 1700s to Category:Thirteen Colonies in the 1700s, and done the same move for the corresponding categories related to the 1710s, 1720s, 1730s, 1740s, 1750s, 1760s, and the 1770s, and it appears that the intent is to replace the U.S. categories for these decades with categories pertaining to the 13 colonies. Interestingly, the pre-1700 U.S. decade categories have not been touched. The content in the year categories has also not been touched (for example, Category:1755 in the United States has not been moved to Category:1755 in the Thirteen Colonies, although it is now categorized in the parent Category:Thirteen Colonies in the 1750s).

While I appreciate the historical reasoning that presumably underlies the moves, it potentially makes for a really complicated category structure for American history categories based on years and decades. For lands to the west of the Thirteen Colonies, will we be creating decade categories for French Louisiana? What about Spain's colonies? Will media related to present-day Mexico and present-day Florida (not to mention other parts of the U.S.) in the 18th century all be combined in the same year & decade categories, because they were all part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain? Do we exclude Category:Vermont in the 1770s from Category:United States in the 1770s and/or Category:Thirteen Colonies in the 1770s, because at the time it was part of neither? At various points, parts of the territory of present-day Maine were part of New France, Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, until 1820 when Maine became a state and 1842 when the U.S. and Britain agreed on a boundary between Maine and British North America -- good luck trying to categorize media related to 18th century and early 19th century Maine. The complications abound, and I have only mentioned a few.

For the most part, year and decade categories are organized by way of today's national and sub-national entities. There are exceptions (e.g. the parent year/decade categories pertaining to Great Britain and the United Kingdom), although in those cases the category structure are still quite simple and clear-cut. We typically avoid organizing year/decade categories by way of historical entities and boundaries because one would then need an advanced knowledge of history to simply be able to review the media on Commons pertaining to a specific place through the years. It is hard enough getting getting content pertaining to the U.S. history in, say, the 1750s placed in Category:United States in the 1750s, let alone asking contributors to first figure out the colonial status of the location in question.

I don't think it's a good idea to replace U.S. decade categories pertaining to the 1700-70s period with ones named after the Thirteen Colonies. At a minimum, the Thirteen Colonies decade cats should be subcats of U.S. decade cats, although even that arguably adds an unnecessary level of categorization (but it's better than straight out replacement). I thought I'd raise the issue here to what others thought. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. I see that problem popping up in many areas. Politically, 250 years ago, the world was divided in a completely different way than the current situation. There was no United States and a major part of the world was "belonging" to Britain, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Rome, Russia ... We have to make it very clear that for all historical related items, the geopolitical reference framework is the current political situation. --Foroa (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem can become complex because the Thirteen Colonies belong equally to Great Britain (no United Kingdom at that time). As can be seen in Category:Low Countries, it is getting even more complex when people categories are introduced deeper down in the structure for people that belong to a historical period (Northern and Southern Netherlands). My position there is that those people should be classified too in the country that corresponds with the actual political configuration. --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you have suggested, the colonial implications would make the category structure very complicated. For example, the new Category:Thirteen Colonies in the 18th century is categorized in Category:18th century in Great Britain. The 13 colonies were obviously British colonies, but they weren't actually part of Great Britain itself. I can't even begin to think how we would start organizing the categories if we started including categories related to colonies in parent categories related to the European empires -- imagine trying to sort media related to India in the 18th century by the parts that fell under various Portuguese, Dutch, French and British colonial administrations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Around 1/19/11 I happened to stumble across the Wikimedia Commons category "United States in the 1720s" etc., which seemed incorrect (implied United States existed a bit earlier than it really did). So I started the correction, modelled after categories already established in Wikipedia: "Category:18th century in the Thirteen Colonies" and "Category:17th century in the Thirteen Colonies," etc. M2545 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but categories play a much different role here on the Commons than they do on Wikipedia, with completely different considerations. Here, a clear and straightforward category tree is of far more importance than adherence to historic nomenclature. It also isn't necessarily incorrect to say, for example, 1755 in the United States, as the reference is to the lands that today make up the United States, rather than any implication that the United States existed in 1755. I'm not sure how you would address all of the problems raised above (which, frankly, is just the tip of the iceberg). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simplicity is an admirable goal when creating labels for categories of images. But a category such as "1755 in the United States" is nonsensical. M2545 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more helpful if you actually responded to the issues raised, and the positions set out out in respect of 1755 in the United States, rather than simply labelling it all "nonsensical". We need a global solution that works for all American history categories (and is consistent with the approach for other categories); we can't simply hive off some categories because we are of the opinion it is more historically accurate, with no regard to the rest of the category tree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a solution, or do you object to reverting the categories? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as ascent. A category like 1755 in the United States doesn't mean that the U.S. as a political entity existed in 1755, but rather that means that the category contains media pertaining to 1755 in the lands that now make up the U.S. Given the problems stated above, that's the only approach that seems to make sense, unless someone else can suggest something else that works.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here. I reverted several redirects which did not work anyway as such categories are often defined by templates. --Foroa (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting prepositions

Some time ago I had a debate regarding prepositions for animal-in-zoo categories. Usually this was "in", but I had used "at" because I found a lot of content of free-ranging animals (mainly wild birds photographed roaming about in a zoo), which met with vigorous objection by another editor.

Fair enough, "in" is the more obvious choice - but that doesn't change the fact that this does not adequately cover the content we have, period. But to use 2 different prepositions is not gonna work well either.

Sooooo..... why not use "of" (e.g. "Category:Animals of Bronx Zoo")? "Of" is the standard Commons term for localization/subcategorization anyway (e.g. "Category:Maps of Egypt"), and I can't see any real problems by expanding its use to zoo animals. "Category:Animals of United States zoos" might be a bit awkward at first if you know the "in"-scheme, but it is less awkward than "at", and it beats "in" by being able to handle any and all such content ("of" not indicating a spatial relationship, but merely inclusion in a set - the parent category in this case). Finally, it is a step towards streamlining category nomenclature - we have "Category:Animals of the United States".

Thus I make a proposal to globally move to "of"-categories these and any other "in"/"at"/...-categories where it makes sense. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Animals"/"Fauna" problem

Hi, I have put this up here already.

Briefly, we cannot use "Flora" and "Fauna", because this cannot accomodate fungi (mushrooms, toadstools, molds...) and protists ("protozoa"/"unicellular algae"), which are neither flora nor fauna.

Therefore we would probably have to use "Animals" and "Plants" (and "Fungi" and "Protists"). This would be a major mass-rename. I have set up a few proposals to that accord, but no one seems to have noticed; I have not done or pushed for the actual category moves because the impact is major.

This has been a major source of inconsistency, both the "English" and "Latin" schemes have been developed in parallel. I think by now - as we're moving towards a unified scheme - it needs to be straightened out once and for all, because the regionalization of "biota categories" is progressing nicely. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I am missing the courage ..., especially in some parts of the world. --Foroa (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Categories/Archive_2&oldid=708172418"