Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Archive <strong class="error">Error: Invalid time.</strong>

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Lin Zexu 林則徐

Should just be Category:Lin Zexu. Spellcast (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- User:Docu at 06:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

What are "norm symbols"? I have never heard of this terminology before and yet some of my images were moved into this category. I have a feeling that "norm" is actually an abbreviation for "normal", but I'm not sure. If it is, then the category should at least be renamed to "normal symbols" (although I'm still not sure what that means). If there is a better description for "norm symbols" I would much rather see this category moved to that better name. --Wizard191 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you show me my mistake; to clarify it: "Norm" is the German word for standard in the meaning or DIN, ISO, etc. DIN stands for Deutsche Industrie Norm, so we should change the category name to something like "Standard symbols". Would you agree with that? --WikipediaMaster (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand you correctly, these are all "standard symbols" used on engineering drawings? If so I propose the category be renamed to Category:Engineering drawing symbols so that it is completely explicit. Wizard191 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only for engineering, also for manufacturing. So i.m.o. a better suggestion is: Category:Standard symbols, as they are standardised --Stunteltje (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard symbols is missleading. What exactly is supposed to be in the cat? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the misleading element. Symbols found in standards of standardising organisations, NEN, EEC, DIN, ISO and so on. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also would say, category: Standard symbols or alternativly category:Standardized symbols would fit best and if needed, subcategories may be build later! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are manufacturing symbols different from engineering symbols? I believe they are the same seeing how manufacturing drawing are derived from engineering drawings. Wizard191 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be "Standards symbols"? ie symbols for different manufacturing/engineering etc. standards as set by these different organisations? That would also help with the confusion around the meaning "normal/general/standard" -- Deadstar (msg) 09:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that different people are trying to push for different things here. It appears that WikipediaMaster attempted to set up this category to be a parent category for standards that define symbols

Just the other way around: Symbols, defined by standards! WikipediaMaster (talk)

That's what I said "standards that define symbols". I think we are on the same page here. Wizard191 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(and it appears letters and some other stuff).

Thats what I found later, that there are also other symbols, defined by standards WikipediaMaster (talk)

However, there is also a hodge podge of other things lumped in, mostly being engineering drawing symbols.

Who uses the term "engineering drawing symbols"? Nobody! WikipediaMaster (talk)

Obviously I just did. And the point isn't whether the term is in vogue, but if it is descriptive. Wizard191 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As such, I propose that the current category be renamed Category:Symbol standards and then a separate category created called Category:Engineering drawing symbols and have all of the related files moved to this new category. Wizard191 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what my original idea was. I wanted to have a category, where standardized symbols that are used in technical drawings can be found. Beside that, I found other standardized symbols, not used in technical drawings but for other purposes. category: Symbol standards would be the correct category for the Standard defining the Symbol The symbols itself would better fit in a category: Standardized symbols. For the technical drawings symbols we could also create a category:Symbols library. Why? Because thats a name also used in CAD systems today and thats why I would prefer that instead of Category:Engineering drawing symbols. --WikipediaMaster (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I like your argument for category: Symbol standards and category: Standardized symbols, but definitely disagree with category:Symbols library. "Symbols library" is very ambiguous; I'm an engineer and if I saw that category as an available option for categorizing engineering symbols I wouldn't know that that's the proper cat for me. I would think it's the parent cat for all symbols of any kind. If you don't like Category:Engineering drawing symbols how about the shortened Category:Engineering symbols? This would be a subcat of category:standardized symbols. I'm trying to work to a compromise here. Wizard191 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets start with category:Standardized symbols and we will see, which subcats are really needed then. First step, I replaced category:Norm symbols by the new cat now, because that makes for sure sense and puts away my own error! Additionally I have now created category:DIN symbols and category:ISO symbols, as this completes the work started! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread. Category was moved/deleted. -- User:Docu at 06:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Naked women with red hair

Proposal: Assorted categories for people described a "Naked" should be renamed to substitute the word "Nude" for "Naked".

Commons has a slew of categories for "naked" and for "nude" people, with the terms as far as I can tell used rather arbitrarily (eg, why Category:Naked women with red hair but Category:Nude women with long hair -- does length or color of hair have something to do with whether one is nude instead of naked?) As far as I can tell any lingistic distinction is not so drastic as to require seperate categories for "nude" and "naked". I therefore propose that all categories describing people as "naked" be renamed to describe them as "nude". I note that on en:Wikipedia "naked" redirects to "nudity". Examples Category:Naked young women, Category:Naked women in bed, Category:Naked men in heraldry, and similar. (For claity I should mention this proposal does NOT include things where the word "Naked" is actually part of the common name, eg Category:World Naked Bike Ride, Category:Naked Cowboy, Category:Romanian Naked-Neck Tumbler.) --Infrogmation (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Evrik (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As no objections to the proposal have been offered, I shall start moving/renaming relevent categories as proposed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt

It's suggested to rename this to Category:Franklin D. Roosevelt, for consistency with the other subcategories of Category:Presidents of the United States (Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, etc.) and en:Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The current category name could obviously still redirect, this to make it easier for Non-English speaking user to find the category. Category descriptions can also mention the name of the maternal grandfather. -- -- User:Docu at 14:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the current name is just fine. Multichill (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Either "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" or "Franklin D. Roosevelt" are perfectly acceptable as he was and is commonly refered to by both terms. "Franklin D." has the advantages of matching en:W article (any archive of discussion how that title was settled on there?) and having fewer letters to type. On the other hand, a google search for the string in quotation marks shows 4,030,000 hits for "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" and 1,690,000 for "Franklin D. Roosevelt" indicating that the former is the more common construction by a wide margin. I don't think the potential advantages to renaming the category outweigh leaving it at the term that is more than 3 times as common. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like a reasonable approach, but I wonder if we shouldn't try to compare
  "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" -"Franklin D. Roosevelt"
  "Franklin D. Roosevelt" -"Franklin Delano Roosevelt"
  the second query yields more than twice the number of results as the first one. -- User:Docu at 00:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Commons, like many wikipedia's (see IW) avoids middle name initials. --Foroa (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you list any reference for this? Otherwise, you should present it as your personal opinion. -- User:Docu at 00:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it doesn't match the others (I think) is because it's more common to say FDR's full middle name vs. those other presidents, which are almost always middle initial only. Many people don't even know what those letters stand for (like did you know Harry S. Truman's middle initial doesn't actually stand for anything?). We should go by what's most common. In this case, I don't know but I think I heard "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" slightly more in my lifetime. My Google tests show "Franklin D. Roosevelt" is the more popular form (2,650,000 vs. 1,130,000 hits) so we can't go by Google if it changes that drastically in a short time. Anyway, unnecessary work, IMO. Rocket000 (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed unnecessary work. Even in my area, I know several Franklin Roosevelt streets/squares/buildings, sometimes Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but never Franklin D. Roosevelt. Middlename abbreviations should be avoided: either full middlename or disambiguation. --Foroa (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be any consensus to change this. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Executive Departments of the United States

Rename Category:Department of State of the United States (talk) to Category:United States Department of State (1,916 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Department of Justice of the United States (talk) to Category:United States Department of Justice (270 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Officials of the Department of Justice of the United States to Category:Officials of the United States Department of Justice (108 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Department of Labor of the United States (talk) to Category:United States Department of Labor (718 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:U.S. Department of Labor appointees to Category:United States Department of Labor appointees (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:U.S. Department of Commerce (talk) to Category:United States Department of Commerce (81 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

I recommend the following category name changes so the category names reflect the correct name of the organizations (please see Wikipedia & the way these organizations spell out their names). As can be seen with Category:Executive Departments of the United States, most the cats already correctly reflect these organizations with “United States” in front of the organization. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although this nomination is nearly a year old, it looks like no notice was ever given on the category page. I will add that and hope that produces some discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 08:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussions elsewhere: User_talk:Foroa/archive_2010#Cat_Changes_for_USG_orgs: the categories are named according to Commons conventions (topic of country) and for once, correspond with the wikipedia name too. On Commons, we have 3 times less category names (than on the en:wikipedia) that start with "United States. --Foroa (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the commons convention is good to use, but not when there is an official name and the convention changes it. For example, the official name of the USMC is United States Marine Corps, so why should we make it Marine Corps of the United States when the convention changes the name away from it's official one. The naming convention should not change a name away from an official name. FieldMarine (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree such as for United States Marine Corps, but as you can see here, the departments have no United States prefix, this is rather a wikipedia naming convention. For translations from other languages, this is another debate because their "offcial" English names tend to be non official and for some strange reasons, most people want the name of the country in the beginning of the name. --Foroa (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you that the U.S. departments do not use United States in their title. Please see these official logos here, here and here. Please see the official website for the U.S Department of Labor here, the U.S. Departmemt of State here, the U.S. Departmemt of Treasury here or the U.S. Department of Defense here. IMHO, these agencies use United States in their title. FieldMarine (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, some don't. Please stick to ones that are discussed here. An overview of the seals in en:United States federal executive departments shows clearly which ones have the US prefix integrated in their name. --Foroa (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In looking just at a specific case, the United States Department of Labor, whose category had edits which removed "United States" from its name, should be Category:United States Department of Labor to reflect its proper name. Their website shows they use it here as well as the front page of their strategic plan here as well as their budget overview here or the sign in front of the building here. These websites, documents and files clearly show the proper name is United States Department of Labor. Thus, I recommend we change this category back to Category:United States Department of Labor to reflect the proper name. FieldMarine (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's all the time your interpretation. The abbreviation is DOL (on all their sites such as www.dol.gov), but for their external communication, they glue United States in front of them because there are hundreds of departments of Labor in the world. Look at their seals, logos and here, in the US, it is called "Department of Labor". Even in the laws] and here, there is only Department of Labor. --Foroa (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely my point, as mentioned above DOL is an abbreviation of the official title of United States Department of Labor. In reference to the two laws posted above, the 2d page, 1st column on each CFR shows the name in the official address as United States Department of Labor. FieldMarine (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly want to absolutely find United States in front of the name. I'll stop, but you can search here in the official US Government Manual. --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to use the correct name for the category. So far, I'm not convienced it's properly named as it stands. That is why it is here for discussion to gain consensus. FieldMarine (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Personally I don't object to renaming some of these categories, for disambiguation. While, in retrospect, it might seem logical for all US Federal agencies should have been officially named the "United States Department of Xxxx". However, due to local parochialism, most or none of these agencies included "United States" in their official names. I believe other respondents here are correct that, due to inertia, and continued local parochialism, most of these agencies retain their original non-intenational official names.
In all cases the text in the body of the actual category should spell out the actual official name, even when the official name is not disambiguous.
As others have observed, when an agency already has a disambiguous name like the United States Marine Corps, the category should remain at that name. Geo Swan (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving all and redirecting: "United States Department of Justice" and "United States Department of Labor" are by far the most common unambiguous English-language names of these English-language subjects. Same for the U.S. Department of State (which is a bit awkward in any unambiguated form). Keep in mind that most U.S. states also have a "Department of Labor", so the issue of disambiguating this name in the United States has existed for decades before Commons. There are dozens of departments of labor in the United States, but only one "United States Department of Labor" (though that is sometimes also called "the federal Department of Labor"). And the United States Department of Justice also uses that long form of its own name; Americans also use it as the name. And the tendency over the last few decades has been to shift further towards using "United States" on the front of names, and away from "of the United States". "Department of Justice of the United States" or "Department of Labor of the United States" as a Commons name could only appropriate if two claims are true: (1) that somehow "United States" isn't a real name, despite a department, all of its subdivisions, and native speakers using it constantly, even in official correspondence; then (2) a Commons convention for disambiguation (designed for cases when an entity has no standard English title) is more important than the standard that the English language itself already uses (e.g. for U.S. federal departments). Example for the USDOJ:
- http://www.justice.gov/ says "United States Department of Justice" with the page title "Welcome to the United States Department of Justice", then uses "Department of Justice" afterwards.
- Google hits: about 2,170,000 results for "United States Department of Justice"; about About 951,000 results for "Department of Justice of the United States".
- Google hits for abbreviations: about 29,800,000 results for "DOJ" (which may have multiple meanings); About 1,730,000 results for "USDOJ"; about 45,700 results for "DOJUS" (Department of Justice isn't even in the top 100 results); about 395 results for "DOJOTUS" (Department of Justice isn't even in the top 100 results)

--Closeapple (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed, consensus appears to favor aligning the categories under one naming schema. Discussion has not changed since late 2011 after beginning in early 2010. Blurpeace 18:23, 5 July 2012 (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.

Category:Węgrzce (wojwództwo małopolskie)

badname --Luxetowiec (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2010 (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.

Category:Vitina/Viti

real category is Vitina. This one is empty --Tadija (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Empty category. — Dferg ^(disputatio) 14:05, 8 January 2010 (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.

Category:Kačanik/Kaçanik

Real category at Kačanik --Tadija (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2010 (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.

Category:Big Red (B-17)

This category is empty. The page en:Big Red B-17 was deleted in june-2009 after debate --Tangopaso (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread: The two images that were used in that article were deleted here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Big_Red_B-17_Photo.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Red Crew.jpg. As there aren't any images left to categorize, I added {{Speedy}} to the category. -- User:Docu at 07:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio: empty (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Big Red (B-17))

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.

Category:Hydravion

Category name in french, redundant with Category:Seaplanes. --Duch.seb (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule on Wikicommons prohibiting French categories.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category was converted to redirect. -- User:Docu at 06:47, 11 February 2010 (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.

Category:Childish drawings by adults

How can you ever define that category correctly?

Seems useless to me, I'd favor deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as such a category may also attract out-of-scope personal drawings. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Soccer

The Category:Soccer is currently redirected (twice) to Category:Association football. Surely there is room on the commons for images of soccer games that are not played at a professional level? The image that brought this to my attention is File:Compliant captives are allowed to play soccer in Guantanamo.jpg. Until this is sorted out I am going to leave it in Category:Sports. Geo Swan (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the name football itself. Sure we could have an amateur football category, but the Americans would assume it means their kind. This doesn't need a cfd, somebody just needs to think up a sensible name for an amateur football category. Heck, you could break the naming convention and call it amateur soccer, at least nobody would mistake it. -Nard the Bard 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what would be wrong with using Category:Soccer for images of soccer? The edit that did the problematic redirect cites Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/07/Category:Soccer in England & Category:Soccer in Scotland, in the edit summary. From my reading of the {{Cfd}} from two years ago, the contributor who did this category redirect went beyond what was authorized in the discussion they cited. After I initiated this discussion, when I went to add the info about this discussion to their talk page, I found they had been permanently blocked from future participation in the project.
- For what it is worth I think that if there are to be different categories for organized soccer, and casual soccer, those categories should be subcategories of Category:Soccer -- or possibly Category:Football (soccer).
- Frankly I don't know what "Association football" is. I have never heard this term before today. Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category_talk:Soccer -Nard the Bard 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might it be practical to use the term "soccer" for subcategories relevent to countries where the game is called "Soccer", eg something like "Soccer games in the United States"? Infrogmation (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soccer and association football are the same thing. They shouldn't be used to distinguish professional vs amateur or whatever. I suggest leaving it as it is and closing this discussion, since it's inactive anyway. ghouston (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as per my suggestion. ghouston (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Preserved LMS Princess Royal Class

Request category be deleted. There are only two preserved locomotives (both of which now have a category of their own) out of a class of twelve. An extra layer of Preserved/Historical is over-categorisation and redundant. --Iain Bell (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The virtue of this category is in allowing the population of its parent category, Category:Preserved London, Midland and Scottish Railway steam locomotives, if there is an intention to record preservation by class. How few survivors does a class require before, like this category, we intend to abandon it in favour of listing individual survivors in the overall preservation classes? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both preserved locomotives can (an do) have their category directly in Category:Preserved London, Midland and Scottish Railway steam locomotives. I would answer you query by turning it on its head – how many survivors does a class need before a “Preserved class” category is needed? Iain Bell (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which hat am I wearing? If I'm pragmatically adding cats by hand, then I wouldn't bother for two (but neither would I delete it if it did exist). OTOH, if I'm wibbling about lightweight semantics in wikis, DBpedia etc. then I would have the cat whenever it was meaningful (i.e. one or more) because then the set of cats that exists then indicates the set of cats that were preserved. I can use query tools to generate neatly presented lists, nav trees etc. To be honest, a decent implementation with SPARQL-like tools (i.e. using DBpedia rather than DPL) then I'd assume I needed to check for joint membership of the image being in a recognisable class and also in a child cat of "preserved" to do a competent query, so it doesn't really matter anyway - with or without the cat, I'd get the answer.

Mostly though, I'd leave it alone. I'd neither create nor delete, unless there was a strong reason. 2 isn't enough to create, but neither to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing old discussion, there was no agreement to delete. It's no worse than other categories in Category:Preserved London, Midland and Scottish Railway steam locomotives. ghouston (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sounds by country

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

(Moved from an other page and from Category talk:Sound by country. --ŠJů (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsDelinker request: Sounds/Sound

Rename Category:Sounds of Austria to Category:Sound from Austria (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Sounds of Cape Verde to Category:Sound from Cape Verde (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Sounds of France to Category:Sound from France (0 entries moved, 10 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Sounds of Germany to Category:Sound from Germany (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Sounds of Italy to Category:Sound from Italy (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Sounds of Japan to Category:Sound from Japan (0 entries moved, 21 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Regarding your request to move category "Sounds of Japan" to "Sound from Japan" etc. on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands - This is not an uncontroversial move as in my eyes, you're going from plural to singular & that's against what the norm would be on Commons. Can you open a {{move}} request for that please? I don't think it'll get processed at all otherwise. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussion is possible, but unification is necessary. I'm transfering to Category talk:Sound by country Mircea (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be moved the other way - ie from Category:Sound by country to Category:Sounds by country as they are different types of sound. The second category already exists, so this is more of a merge than a move request in that case. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's complication, because Category:Sounds by country is category about geographical objects "" now. Mircea (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha - didn't even see that! OK, now that is a complication. So, there is Category:Sound from the United States, probably to distinguish it from Category:Sounds of the United States. To me, it feels wrong to go from the plural to the singular, but to have the distinction made by "of/from" is also confusing (ie to have Category:Sounds from the United States). More ideas are needed. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we should just go with your initial request (I just needed it explained to me - it definitely makes more sense in the context of Category:Sound) -- Deadstar (msg) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Sound by country is comparable with Category:Videos by country. But therefore that there is no confusion with Category:Sounds by country (geography), it is better to work with Category:Audio files by country. --R. Engelhardt (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something without discussion and something is for discussion:

Sound[s] (Audio files) from "country"

without discussion: Audio files from - little "f" in word "files" and "from" instead of "of"
for discussion: pluralxsingular for Sound[s] (audio)

it's not complete... Mircea (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[reset identation] Are you saying that you propose something like "Sound (Audio files) from Country X"? I believe the "Sound" part could be left aside and then we wouldn't have to deal with the singular/plural issue. So, I think the best would be "Audio files from Country X" (which seems to be the dominating option right now). --Waldir ^talk 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something along the lines of Audio by country would be unambiguous. Man vyi (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also happy with that. Please also have a look at Category:Audio files by country: I think we need a clear description of what the difference would be between Category:Audio by country and Category:Audio files by country. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difference? I thought he proposed the usage of "Audio by country" instead of "Audio files by country". Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Waldir ^talk 12:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he meant to say to move "Sounds by country" to something like "Audio by country". Anyway - my point was that the category Category:Sounds of Japan was defined that it should have the sounds of the country (a tram rattling by, vendors on the corner, temple bells etc.) and I think that "Audio files by country" is more about music/book readings/radio recordings etc. from a specific country? If we merge the two, that distinction will be lost. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the Sound categories are problematic, it looks like Audio is a workable solution. So should we have Audio of Japan/Audio files of Japan in Audio by country/Audio files by country? And Audio by language/Audio files by language? If we had an overarching Audio by country then a seemingly inevitable Recording studios by country would presumably also fit in there? And from a multilingual point of view Audio by country is simpler for those less comfortable with English language than Audio files..., I'd have said. Man vyi (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>As all uploads are obviously "files", is there a way to eliminate that from the naming?

Category:Audio by country for Sound by country. To include sounds of bells, trams, animal sounds etc.
- with subcat ie Category:Audio from Japan
Category:Audio by language (by country) for Sound files by country To include spoken language files (speeches, books, pronunciation explanations etc.) but likely just a cat link to the spoken wikipedia files as they are in a system of their own.
- with subcat ie Category:Audio in Japanese from Japan, Category:Audio in English from Australia (I could not actually find an existing Accents/Dialects category at all?)
And then there's the existing Category:Music by country for music files.

Please also note that I've just looked at the files in the categories, I haven't listened to them & it could be some work to straighten them into a new structure. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, used for sound beaches/coasts/landofrms now. --Foroa (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Royal titles

Not all Monarchs are Royals and after remove of Category:Monarchs from the Category:Royal titles, Category:Royal titles will be empty. A see also to Category:Monarchs are on the category page already. --Diwas (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I suggest to delete the category page Category:Royal titles --Diwas (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really oppose - I guess we can still have Category:Titles of nobility at some point. Ingolfson (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobility is better defined than royalty. (Another way were to describe and define royal titles exactly in the category-description and categorize exacly the titles to Category:Royal titles that matching that description.) --Diwas (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You thing about this?

Nobility

Nobility by country

Nobility of ...

Titles of nobility

Countesses

Queens

Counts

Kings

Pashas

...

Nobel women

Countesses

Queens

...

Nobel men

Counts

Kings

Pashas

...

Paintings of nobility

Noble courts

...

I am not sure if Category:Monarchs should be categorized in a Category:Titles of nobility. --Diwas (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May as well delete it, as per comments. ghouston (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:History of the Czech Republic and some of subcategories

Unlike other countries which are specified by timeless or long-life geographical name, the Czech Republic is called by the official name of the current state corporation and regime which has a short history (since 1969 in the framework of the Czechoslovak federation, since 1993 as an independent state). Modern photographies can be categorized as "from the Czech Republic" but in case of special categories of historical themes and periods, this name sounds absurdly.

There are names of separate Czech lands (Bohemia, Moravia, Czech Silesia) but no short name of the whole Czech country is fully established. The historical name of Czech Kingdom area is Czech Lands (it involved Bohemia, Moravia and in some periods parts of Silesia and both Lusatias). In the modern period (before 1918 and during the early Czechoslovakia), Czech lands can be perceived as Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Silesia, but this name has historic connotations. The modern short names ("Česko" in Czech, "Czechia" in English) aren't fully and widely accepted yet (see the article Name of the Czech Republic).

We should find some acceptable treatment. We should choose from names "Czechia", "Czech Lands", "Czech lands" (Czechland, Czechlands) and "the Czech Republic" and to take a decision whether just one name will be used in all cases or one name in modern context and second one in historical context. Some content should be categorized into subcategories by the historical land (in Bohemia, in Moravia).

I am suggesting to use "in Czechia" generally (and to replace "in the Czech Republic" with it) or (if would the first proposal impassable) to use "in Czechia" or "in Czech lands" only in historical context and to keep "in the Czech Republic" in modern context. --ŠJů (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion in Czech had begun at my talk page before this Cfd.)

I agree to this proposal and I would prefer "in Czechia" as well --anro (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose to this proposal. There is not our fault that our country have its current state form in its name generally used on en: or Commons. We can percieve the word Republic here as a integral part of country's name with no special connotation of its government form. It is an equally valid and good name as Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, France or United States. Czech Republic is here merely a geographic designation we shoul use for media regarding present territory of the Czech Republic through its whole history. This is the same as Poland, Austria, Germany etc. is used for categories like Country in the XX century. Czech lands encompasses some territories (Silesia, Lusatia) which are covered under Poland or Germany, therefore it is unsuitable for division of topics along current state boundaries. For example we can list depictions of (nowadays Polish) town of Kłodzko under Category:Kingdom of Bohemia (1627-1740) because the town was part of Bohemia at that time but we shall not list it under Category:1648 in the Czech Republic (btw any perception of anachronism or oddity is gone when you imagine Czechia or Poland or Spain in the category name instead of the Czech Republic). I do not object the word Czechia in my everyday life outside Wikiedia but we use Czech Republic when referring our state and its territory almost universally here and on en:. So for overall simplicity we should use Czech Republic even for Coats of arms, Flags, Centuries, Decades and Years because they are related to present day territory, not to the territory valid at some more or less distant point of history. There are some templates giving an overview of various country/time-related topics and usage of both Czechia and Czech Republic in one place would be quite confusing (not sure whether this two name option can be easily incorporated in such templates at all). Czech Republic does not affect some categories used primarily for sake of historical periodization where historical territorial extent is the primary interest (e.g. Category:Czech lands under Habsburg Dynasty, Category:Margraviate of Moravia (1526-1628)). --Miaow Miaow (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree to the proposal and strongly prefer the one-word, politically neutral form "Czechia". --Petrus Adamus (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the abstract I like "Czechia", but the fact is that it has no currency at all among native English speakers. I'd be interested in seeing a different way out of this. Possibly "Czech lands"? - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related categories:

The truth and reality is, that there no Czech Republic existet before 1918. Until the creation of this, the official and only name since hundred of years was Kingdom of Bohemia. If the czech nationalists cannot live with this historical fact, so for for heaven's sake the name Czechia should be used. -- Steinbeisser (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Czech Republic existed before 1969 when Czechoslovakia was federalized. But Czech (non-republic) statehood and country has medieval history. The reason why "Czech Republic" is used instead of "Czechia" is not a Czech nationalism but the fact that there exist no widespread supertemporal name for Czech lands. The word "Czechia" is too rare and hence a bit controversial word, the term "Czech lands" is archaic and outlived (btw. Kingdom of Bohemia was only one of several Czech lands, i. e. of Lands of the Bohemian Crown), the term "Czech Republic" has its correct meaning only for the time since 1969 or even 1993. But as apparently, most of Czech as well as non-Czech users would support to use "Czechia" generally.

Btw, Category:United States in the 17th century is not problematic? There were no United States of America before 1776. --ŠJů (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(See also this and this, a similar problem, with Rhineland-Palatinate). --ŠJů (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have right - even Category:United States in the 17th century as the "Rhineland-Palatinate in the 1920" is incorrect because at this time these countries didn't exist as such. I'm waiting for the next category will be established as "The Czech Republic during the time of the Dinosaur" or similiar. (Oh Lord, please help if you can - probably even he cannot in that special case!) - Steinbeisser (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of history by the area of today's states can have any sense, especially regarding surviving architecture etc. However, categorization of mediavel or 19th century events by "Republic" looks very peculiarly. The problem is that "Czech lands" (Czechia) has very various extent in varous times. I think, as many historical content as possible should be categorized by historical lands ("Bohemia in the 1580s", "1645 in Moravia" etc. Categorization of the history of Lusatia and Silesia in relation to eventual "Czech lands" category should be discussed. The words Czech Republic should not appear before 1969, just as Czechoslovak categories don't exist for years before 1918 and past 1992. --ŠJů (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fussed whether we use Czechia or Czech Republic (I lean slightly towards the latter, however), as log as the categories continue to pertain strictly to the lands which today constitute the Czech Republic. One should not require an in-depth knowledge of Czech history to use the categories, with proper categorization dependent on knowing what historic kingdoms and states existed when, and where the boundaries lay at any givem point in history. On that point, I agree with Miaow Miaow.Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if the categories had descriptions, e.g., Category:Czech Republic in the 14th century is presumably media that relates to the the geographical area of the current Czech Republic. Such categories seem well-defined and are probably useful (assuming that the current boundaries don't change often, and there aren't more useful geographical areas that could be used) and they can be used in addition to categories for historical kingdoms etc. ghouston (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However at present there's no indication that Category:History of the Czech Republic was intended to be geographic, rather it includes everything related to the "Czech states" or "Czech lands", so there's no reason to expect the dated subcategories to be geographic either. It seems reasonable to have a separate category for each of the historic states, which have any significant Czech component, where the current Czech Republic also has its own category. They could then be grouped into a broader Czech states category. Then geographically-based categories could be based on the territory of the current republic, or on entities like Bohemia or Moravia as ŠJů said above. ghouston (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for a change. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Map categories showing history by period

This category name is confusing; we don't usually have categories with "category" in their name. I think that this category should be merged to Category:Maps showing history by period. I fail to see the need for those categories to be separate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Category:Maps showing history by period was created later. I agree that it is a better name. We can go ahead and merge them together now. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to Category:Maps showing history by period. --rimshot^talk 21:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Professional audio equipments

Reasons for discussion request: Empty category that is redundant to many other audio related categories --Andyzweb (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case if kept, should be Category:Professional audio equipment, not Category:Professional audio equipments (equipments is more or less a non-word), but Andy, was this already empty, or did you go about emptying it? - Jmabel ! talk 06:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, unused. --rimshot^talk 15:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Professional audio

Reasons for discussion request: empty category that will not be used --Andyzweb (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, unused. --rimshot^talk 15:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Synagogues in the Colorado

Typographical error, should have been "Synagogues in Colorado". Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems completely uncontroversial, just take it to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Synagogues in Colorado. --rimshot^talk 21:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Replica and subcategories

I believe that in accord with general policy on Commons to pluralize common-noun category names, this should be Category:Replicas, and similarly for subcategories. Many of these subcategories were recently renamed from replica as an adjective (e.g. "Replica ships") to replica as a noun (e.g. "Replica of ships"). If we are using it as a noun, it should be plural.

Also, as a native English speaker, I strongly disagree with the assertion currently made on the page Category:Replica that "The plural form 'replicas' is rarely used." No doubt it doesn't come up as often as the singular—after all, the most common use of the word is certainly just "It's a replica"—but there's nothing unusual about it: consider "See those ships over there? They're replicas," or "I've been trying to find a real Bugatti, but all the ones around here are just replicas." -- Jmabel ! talk 06:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Replica of Donatello's David might be an exception, because I believe it is a category about one particular replica of a statue. Possibly similarly Category:Replica of the Ancient Roman mosaic in Vichten. Someone may identify some other similar cases. - Jmabel ! talk 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there are already several category names that use the plural replicas: e.g. Category:Modern replicas of ancient Roman statues in Vaison-la-Romaine, Category:Replicas of the Augustus of Prima Porta. - Jmabel ! talk 06:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Replica ships" was fine, "replica of ships" is not good at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated long time , mainly because I felt that replica is plural too. Replica is quite common and exist in many languages. Replicas is wrong in many languages and in many English dictionaries. The advantage of the more "modular" "replica of" construction is that it is more uniform with commons naming and extensible. "Replica sailing ships", Replica Michelangelo's David", Replica Statue of Liberty in the United States don't sound right to me. Anyway, in an international multi-language context, we have to be conservative with English and careful not to use too much "modern" English that is not accepted by a large number of English dictionaries (that should have priority over the "impressions" of native speakers). Here a list of categories starting with Replica and containing replica. --Foroa (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a native speaker of English, right? But you "feel" that replica can be a plural in English?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but we cannot base naming on feelings why we have to call in accepted reference works. --Foroa (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would defer to Jmabel's impression as a native speaker when it comes to usage in England. But what reference did you have for the use of replica as a plural? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My latin is getting quite rusty, but the fact that the plural does not exist in probably a majority of dictionaries (I checked +- 10) is a clear indication to me. --Foroa (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a noun in classical Latin?? It is no use consulting stacks of dictionaries, when you do not know how to interpret them. The absence of a plural form in a lemma (in some dictionaries) does not mean that the word can be a plural. Look up sheep or swine for examples. If a word has an irregular plural, it will be explicitly noted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for what it's worth, "sheep" and "swine" don't change in the plural (ditto "deer", "elk", quite a few animals like that). "Replica" is an entirely other matter. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is no use consulting stacks of dictionaries, when you do not know how to interpret them." "You are not a native speaker of English, right?" - How are these comments relevant? Please stick to the argument itself.

As for the mattter at hand - since both the versions with and without "of" are correct gramatically, there is no reason to go back to those without "of", which is less typical for Commons usage. So it is really only about "S or no S" matter. Can the people who prefer the "replicaS" plural form please provide arguments for the proposed change? I do not care either way in this specific case (Replica or replicas), but some cites and references would be appropriate. Ingolfson (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because as many verbs, that become a noun, only slowly evolve to a plural form: mascara(s), Counterfeit(s), walk(s), ... --Foroa (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good analogy: "counterfeit coins" is fine, and "counterfeits of coins" is acceptable. However, "counterfeit of coins" is not a plural, it is something like the act of counterfeiting, forgery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the "of", but (as the original "appellant" for adding the s) all I can say is that as a native speaker, this is word I've never before seen or heard pluralized in any but the usual manner for English: adding an s. I don't know what dictionaries you've consulted, but in my experience most English-language dictionaries don't bother giving the plural for nouns that pluralize normally. Could you have a look and see if the one you say omitted a plural for "replica" gives an explicit plural for "stove" or "pen", words that I'm assuming we can all agree are pluralized by adding s? - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of English, I can vouch for the use of "replicas". I had no idea anyone even considered "replica" plural. Rocket000 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although several dictionaries seem not to support "replicas", some support replica's, the fact that Harraps and Encarta indicate Replicas as plural should be sufficient to accept the word here. --Foroa (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we consider this discussion closed unless somebody has something new to say? Ingolfson (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that every native English speaker who has weighed in has agreed that, in plural, it should be "replicas". Is there any disagreement? - Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thread closed: Please make the corresponding rename requests at User talk:Category-bot. -- User:Docu at 07:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Auguste Rodin's *

There are a few Category:Auguste Rodin's * categories in Category:Auguste Rodin. It seems to me the author's name should come last, giving first information about what it is, and then who created it. So I would suggest renaming those categories to something like Category:* by Auguste Rodin. Also, it might me a good idea to group all of these under Category:Statues by Auguste Rodin; there is already Category:Sculptures by Auguste Rodin, but statue seems more generic than sculptures. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today I think that "* by Auguste Rodin" is better, in my opinion some of the statues by Auguste Rodin deserve their own category especially if they are been exhibeted in several museums and states. Yair-haklai (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I realize I wasn't very clear in what I said about grouping these under Category:Statues by Auguste Rodin. I was referring to the Category:* by Auguste Rodin categories, not the images themselves. In other words, I think it might be useful to have Category:* by Auguste Rodin ⊂ Category:Statues by Auguste Rodin ⊂ Category:Auguste Rodin instead of Category:* by Auguste Rodin ⊂ Category:Auguste Rodin directly. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The theme is not less important than the artist, especially with great artists like Rodin that meant to create something meaningfull. The category Auguste Rodin includes many images and needs subcategories and Statues by Auguste Rodin or Sculptures by Auguste Rodin is not exactly a subcategory they may be intermediate categories. You don't give a serious answer to your statement "giving first information about what it is" by mentioning that it is a sculpture or a statue. And this is why it is very difficult to understand you, when dealing with themes like "Adam", "Eve", "The kiss", "The Prodigal Son‎", "Poet and Muse", "Eternal Spring‎" ,"Amor and Psyche‎" I would like to see other performing or visual art artists that created a work of art based on the same themes. This themes can give inspiration to other artists and articles. Themes by Rodin are very much universal. Yair-haklai (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think you misunderstood me. I'm suggesting two changes:

Move Category:Auguste Rodin's * to Category:* by Auguste Rodin (this is what I meant by "giving first information about what it is, and then who created it", i.e. Adam describes the statue, by Auguste Rodin then gives the information about who made it);
Group all these Category:* by Auguste Rodin under Category:Statues by Auguste Rodin (as subcategories), which itself would be a subcategory of Category:Auguste Rodin.

Is this what you understood? Do you object to any of these changes? Do you have a better suggestion? –Tryphon ^☂ 08:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object. Yair-haklai (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:08, 15 March 2010 (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.

Category:Human anatomy, set of subject: User:Juicybnana

And the parent category: Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted.

I think the name itself says what's wrong with it. It's essentially a category made exclusively for images of another user's body parts. One part in particular... I can't of any way in which this would be useful categorization. Maybe if you were writing an article on the specific anatomy of a random person, but I doubt anyone's going to be doing that. At the best, this is simply excessive, useless categorization. Currently, it's the only one Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted, which is a bad idea for obvious reasons, so that should be deleted as well. -Rocket000 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strongly oppose deletion, suggest re-name; this is an unfinished project in categorizing. i wasn't satisfied with "username" as the naming convention & went away & got busy with other things. hadn't got back to this yet. the basic purpose isn't hard to grasp though: when we have anatomy files of the same subject-person it is more useful to group them together. it allows a more complete & beter definition of subject.

it is also useful to categorize by gender, age/stage of development, & species (which a lot of anatomy material is not!).

i've been working on & off @ improving the organization of the human anatomy material for some time, in between other projects. it gets kind of boring being the only person doing the work...

the cited sub-cat should be renamed, & i'm open to suggestions; the super-cat should remain, unless someone can improve the wording. Lx 121 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic: Categorizing "by species" isn't that important for anatomy. Organisms share many anatomical features. Of course if your studying a specific species, you want that species, however each species already has it's own category where you can find the material. Rocket000 (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me!?: "Categorizing "by species" isn't that important for anatomy." with respect, that statement shows a massive ignorance of the topic. i do not intend for this to be taken as a personal insult by the above user, but i invite them to go to wikipedia, & start reading in the anatomy section, since the above comment shows a significant lack of understanding of the subject. Lx 121 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I can't be insulted when the responder shows his own short-comings. Slow down, and think about what I said. "Organisms share many anatomical features." They do. To study what a heart is, the species isn't important. The organism is, of course, but hearts don't very much from one species to another. When we dissect an animal it's not just to learn about that animal, is it? Rocket000 (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very good idea to bring together some anatomy images of some models of different origin and age, this greatly helps to compare diverse anatomies. Perhaps the category names could be, for example, Subject 1: uncircumcised caucasian male, age xxx; and the parent category Human sexual anatomy, by individual. Richiex (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like a gallery than a category. Rocket000 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. There should be only the parent category and under that pages named like ditto. Richiex (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i thought of that, & the related images thing as well, but the bottom line is categories are the de facto, default organizing system on wmc. nobody is seriously trying to organize the catalogue of commons' material into pages/galleries, or anything else; there's just too much stuff, it take to long to make pages, & they are too hard to update, therefore they're never comprehensive. until/unless we get some better organizing tools categorization is the only thing that really works on here. agreed that the naming convention needs improvement; we've established that usernames are problematic, & the current numbering system is meant as a temporary, provisional solution. was thinking along the lines of: human anatomy (set of) subject (x); (gender) (age/approximation) (ethnicity as related to appearance/physical characteristics; touchy subject, needs to be handled carefully) (any other annotations; possibly stats like weight/height, medical conditions, etc.). not sure how to compress that enough tho, to make a reasonable title length. Lx 121 (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also; it's meant to cover human anatomy in general, not just sexual. any anatomy models we've got, with multiple images, should be catalogued here, i just ended up doing the sexual stuff first, because that's what i've been sorting; mainly because i don't have to worry about other users endlessly trying to censor/delete images of other (non-controvertial) parts of human anatomy... Lx 121 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. per nomination. High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Association football national teams

It is a bit confusing to have most subcategories named in different (local) languages and sorted by English names. For example the German football team is listed as "Deutsche ..." but sorted as "Germany". I think it would be good to change the categories so that all use English names. It seems that teams with non-latin alphabets already use English category names like "X national soccer team". Englands category is named "X national association football team". I don't know if one of those two patterns is better than the other, but both are improvements to the current naminng. --Ö 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support moves. En.wp uses pattern of "Austria national football team" so that is good for me. Wknight94 ^talk 03:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. This had been open a while with no opposition so I went ahead and did the moves. Wknight94 ^talk 13:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Comic artists

Who are a comic artist? A sculptor whit a big red crooked nose? A comics creator (parent category)? A comedian (sister projects/interwikilinks)? --Diwas (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Most of the errors and doubts should be taken away by now. --Foroa (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Foroa. Now I see clear. I guess to complete it, a move to Category:Comics artists would be a good idea? --Diwas (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The s is comics is a bit shocking, but you are right. --Foroa (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands:

Rename Category:Comic artists to Category:Comics artists (195 entries moved, 4 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Comics artists is commonly used for this artists. The old name Comic artists is ambiguous. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/02/Category:Comic artists --Diwas (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2010 (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.

Category:Categories by Albedo-ukr

This category is for categories created by User:Albedo-ukr. Seriously. It doesn't help people find media, it's not a "user gallery" in any sense of the word (that what it's marked as), goes against COM:OWN, and serves no other meaningful purpose. Imagine if everyone starting categorizing galleries, categories, templates, etc. because they added a couple lines of text to it... I still can't believe someone thought this would be a good idea. Rocket000 (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to maintain such confusing categories. --Foroa (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete +1 --Leyo 11:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thats beyond the purpose of user categories. --Martin H. (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would set a very bad precedent. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was temporary, maybe, but this was created two years ago. -- User:Docu at 20:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, time to set a precedent. Blurpeace 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense to delete if subcats remain. --Foroa (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I will remove them. -- User:Docu at 06:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Nearly all subcategories of category:Coats of arms by tinctures

As there is no black, blue, yellow, etc. in Heraldry lot of wikiheraldists (here and on fr.wiki) think about renaming non-sens cat. like Category:Black and blue in heraldry in Category:Azure and sable in heraldry.

After a discusion on Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry I launched CommonsDelinker but Docu (talk · contribs) ask me to open a CfD.

So is there any opposition to these logicals renaming ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage the use of international standard heraldic terms provided that the conversion tables are easily available in most top level categories, starting with category:Heraldic tinctures. A specialised navigation template would be useful in such as case. --Foroa (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation template is a good idea, it would be easier (even for the specialist). Could you build it ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 08:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the usal denomination used in English. Pymouss Let’s talk - 19:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit hesitant on this which is why I asked Vigneron to open this discussion. The current naming (black and blue) may be more accessible to the general public, but the specialist might dislike it. With category redirects and category descriptions, we could probably accommodate the former. If we do use "Azure and sable", the "in heraldry" part of the category name is somewhat redundant. -- User:Docu at 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This change is both logical and consistant in naming (in heraldry -part) when compared to other categories in heraldry. --Care (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any idea why all tinctures are without capital except Or ? --Foroa (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to en.wp: Or is frequently spelt with a capital letter (e.g. Gules, a fess Or) so as not to confuse it with the conjunction or. Rocket000 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my native language. I just know that Or is often with a capital (it’s logical to distinguish or/Or, imagine “argent and or in heraldry”). I’m not sure for the other tinctures. But the wikiheraldist approve this. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 12:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread. rename per proposal. -- User:Docu at 13:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow on discussion on Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:Or (heraldry). --Foroa (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Khojaly genocide

Hi! I discovered this category, created by Interfase, some hours ago. As any one can see it on Khojaly Massacre or Massacre de Khodjaly for instance, calling this massacre a "genocide" is highly PoV, to say the least. I thus recategorised its files in Category:Khojaly massacre. Interfase quickly reverted me. I know him from WP:en and that discussing it with him is useless.
Any opinion on what should be done? Sardur (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This massacre also known as a genocide. You can add category Category:Khojaly massacre, but not remove this one. --Interfase (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable and specialised source knowing it as a "genocide". Sardur (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this massacre also known as a genocide. And a lot of people know it as a genocide.[1] So this category is usefull. --Interfase (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But highly PoV, which is the issue at hand. Sardur (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, still the same declaration signed by some very specific people. And still no reliable and specialised source. Sardur (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Category was already deleted, which I think was a reasonable conclusion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No-one opposed the move after seven months of open discussion.

Category:Mary I of Scotland

She is almost universally known as "Mary, Queen of Scots", e.g. [2][3][4]

gscholar hits: 7 for "Mary I of Scotland" v. 16,300 for "Mary, Queen of Scots"

Recommend move to Category:Mary, Queen of Scots. --DrKiernan (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the Wikipedia link is Mary I of Scotland, it follows a set and established format. Gryffindor (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article is en:Mary, Queen of Scots. DrKiernan (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with DrKiernan. The The wikipedia article is en:Mary, Queen of Scots and she is not known as Mary, Queen of Scots not Mary I of Scotland. On top of that, en:Mary I of Scotland redirects to en:Mary, Queen of Scots--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Fairchild 24W

I propose that the category be renamed to Fairchild 24, drooping the "W" that serves as an aircraft model variation identifier. There are very few differences between the "R" and "W" and seeing as there are few aircraft and media in existence this should help simplify things on the Category:Fairchild Aircraft page.--Fairchildbrad (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThis can always be reverted if we become overwhelmed with images of the two variants.KTo288 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or create sub-categories for the variants Fairchildbrad (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Fairchild 24 Rocket000 (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:... in Spain by Autonomous Community

This cfd pertains to the following:

I almost change these to use lowercase "autonomous community", however after seeing COM:CFD/2009/11/London_Boroughs and COM:CFD/2009/01/Category:London Boroughs where I would have incorrectly made them lowercase, I thought I'd come here instead. Since I don't know what it's supposed to be, I don't care. Most are already lowercase, but there are things like Category:Basque Autonomous Community which makes me question it. Rocket000 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in Category:Autonomous communities of Spain and Category:Categories by autonomous community of Spain, an autonomous community is a generic term like province, canton, ... (Like London boroughs is a generic term: Category:London boroughs). So your changes can be made. There is no clear rule if you should use "Basque Autonomous Community" or "Basque autonomous community"; English or German oriented people will tend to use title case (as a proper noun), in other countries they will not. Anyway, ""Basque Autonomous Community" is there and no reason to change. --Foroa (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, your question is only about the four above categories, not their subcategories. I would use lowercase for the 4 above categories. -- User:Docu at 13:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just the ones listed. Rocket000 (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say: I agree with the explanation given by Foroa for "by Autonomous Community". -- User:Docu at 20:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, why doesn't Category:Categories by London Borough use lowercase? Rocket000 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen in en:London borough, another capitalisation error.

To be consistent, I think that "Category:Railway stations by London Borough", should be "railways stations in London by borough", "categories in London by borough". --Foroa (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no opposition, I'll do the renames. I'll also do the ones Foroa mentioned. Anything that's part of a title, like "Basque Autonomous Community", I'm not sure about so I'll leave those alone. Rocket000 (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Gyms and Health Clubs

First, this needs decapitalizing. Second, I wonder if one of the two following names wouldn't be better: either we use a short name just as on en wiki - en:Category:Health clubs - or we go with all three, en:Category:Gyms, fitness and health clubs (frankly, I am not sure what's the difference between those three, if any). Note that on en wiki fitness club redirects to health clubs, while gym does not, but it is linked to our Category:Gymnasiums (the article probably should be moved to gymnasium, and gym should become a disambig...). Anyway, comments appreciated on whether we take the gyms out of this cat, or keep it and add fitness clubs to it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend "gyms and health clubs" because they are usually facilities as opposed to fitness, which implies to me an activity. If we go with one name, either "gym" or "health club", then we should use a redirect for the other. I'm not sure about the distinction between "gyms and health clubs" and "gymnasiums" categories, perhaps these should be merged. FieldMarine (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gymnasiums" is being used in the sense of the sort of thing usually found in a school or a community center, where the facility is mainly a large room for team sports such as basketball. I do think the two are different enough to deserve separate categories. I don't think we should go with just "gyms" because of the confusion with this other type of "gymnasiums". I have no preference on whether "fitness" is added, but we should de-capitalize. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a move to suit the English Wikipedia, i.e. "Health clubs". We can disambiguate from a "gym" page. Ingolfson (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also for Category:Health clubs (or Category:Fitness centers). "Gyms", at least in the U.S., already has the same broader meaning as the current Category:Gymnasiums on Commons; school gyms (i.e. the open areas usually used for basketball, volleyball, and P.E.) are called gyms just as often as fitness centers are.

It's correctly a subcategory of Category:Gymnasiums, so it doesn't make sense to name it Gyms and [whatever], when it's actually for a particular type of gym. I'd start by trying to write a description for the category to see what's in scope. Perhaps "Gymnasiums operated by companies for their customers. They may include additional health-related activities?". This would exclude gymnasiums operated by companies for their staff, community health centres etc. I'd suggest "Commercial gymnasiums, health clubs and fitness centres(sp)", but it's getting a bit long. A fitness centre is just a gym, so maybe "Commercial gyms and health clubs." ghouston (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Commercial gyms" would be sufficient. ghouston (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just happened upon this category and moved all the subcats and images before seeing just now the banner indicating this discussion. I'm really sorry, and don't know how I didn't notice it prior (I must've just acted in knee-jerk response when seeing the capital letters). Let me know if the eventual consensus here requires that I move them back. Nightscream (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That solves the first issue, at least. I added the discussion banner to the new category, Category:Gyms and health clubs, pointing to this page. ghouston (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you also created a category Category:School gyms, which is a duplicate of Category:School gymnasiums. I guess you were fooled by the title of this page into thinking it was the main Gymnasium category instead of a particular subcategory. This makes me think that Category:Commercial gyms would be the best name. ghouston (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But then, what about something like a YMCA fitness centre? Is that also in scope for this category? YMCA isn't really commercial. ghouston (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think Category:Health clubs would be best, since although the name isn't very descriptive, it matches Wikipedia and seems to be in common usage. ghouston (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this discussion and rename it to Category:Health clubs, since it's consistent with Wikipedia, nobody else has commented on the naming for almost a year, and most of the previous comments supported this option. ghouston (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Flags of Marxist-Leninist states

I think this category should be deleted for several reasons. Currently it appears that state and national flags are not classified based on their form of government; for instance, there is no "Category:Flags of monarchies" or "Category:Flags of republics". This particular category is also problematic because it is both specific and difficult to define. First, "Marxist-Leninist" is a term that more often describes political parties, not states. Second, how does one determine what is and what is not a "Marxist-Leninist state"? Is a Marxist-Leninist state one in which any Marxist-Leninist party has been a party represented in the legislature. In a parliamentary system, is a state Marxist-Leninist if the party has formed a government or been a majority? Probably the best candidates for inclusion are states which possesses (or possessed) a constitution or some type of law in which a Marxist-Leninist party is guaranteed a position of power or made a leading national force. Even using this definition, difficulties might be encountered. Consider Poland, probably a "Marxist-Leninist state" for a time because the Polish United Workers' Party (a Marxist-Leninist party) was a leading national force in the Poland from 1948 to 1990. I already anticipate that certain users will try to remove the flag of Poland from Category:Flags of Marxist-Leninist states once it is placed there, which it should be, based on the the definition of the category on its page. Perhaps most importantly, I think this this category does not even need to exist when the information that might be obtained from it is better suited to Wikipedia.--Homo lupus (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. More than two years later, and no objections. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Province x provinces

Unification (f.e. Provinces in Iran)

Hi, acccording to the English spelling rules, generic terms in a proper name should not be with a capital, so province with lower case is OK (In en:wikipedia, use of lower and upper case is a mess). In Iran, there is a mix of uppercase and lower case, so we can go either way. You decide, but I will oppose similar changes in other countries where the lower case is correctly and almost consistently used. --Foroa (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if this is not unified, than categorization is more dificult :O( Mircea (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ref.: Category:Provinces of Iran - unify according to en wiki and other Provinces Categories

{{move cat|Ardabil province|Ardabil Province}}
{{move cat|Bushehr province|Bushehr Province}}
{{move cat|Chaharmahal-o-Bakhtiari province|Chaharmahal-o-Bakhtiari Province}}
{{move cat|East Azarbaijan province|East Azarbaijan Province}}
{{move cat|Fars province|Fars Province}}
{{move cat|Gilan province|Gilan Province}}
{{move cat|Golestan province|Golestan Province}}
{{move cat|Hamadan province|Hamadan Province}}
{{move cat|Hormozgan province|Hormozgan Province}}
{{move cat|Isfahan province|Isfahan Province}}
{{move cat|Kerman province|Kerman Province}}
{{move cat|Kermanshah province|Kermanshah Province}}
{{move cat|Khuzestan province|Khuzestan Province}}
{{move cat|Kordestan province|Kordestan Province}}
{{move cat|Lorestan|Lorestan Province}}
{{move cat|Markazi province|Markazi Province}}
{{move cat|Mazandaran|Mazandaran Province}}
{{move cat|Qazvin province|Qazvin Province}}
{{move cat|Razavi Khorasan province|Razavi Khorasan Province}}
{{move cat|Semnan province|Semnan Province}}
{{move cat|Sistan-o-Baluchestan province|Sistan-o-Baluchestan Bushehr Province}}
{{move cat|South Khorasan province|South Khorasan Province}}
{{move cat|Tehran province|Tehran Province}}
{{move cat|West Azarbaijan province|West Azarbaijan Bushehr Province}}
{{move cat|Yazd province|Yazd Province}}
{{move cat|Zanjan province|Zanjan Province}}

Whatever we opt for, consistency would be good, but upper- or lowercase are equally good English here. It's just a matter of whether you think of "Province" as part of the place name or "province" as a clarification. -- Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are tens of cases where there is a mix of upper/lower case: provinces, counties, cantons, prefectures, districts, regions, ... What I try to keep consistent is its use in the specific country, which seems to be reasonably the case throughout Iran. --Foroa (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The provinces of Iran do not have "Province" as part of each of their names, thus they should be lowercase. en.wp is just being silly with their titles. Rocket000 (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSING, as did on Category page and its talk page...

In accordance with the fact this discussion is now a very stale 3.5 years old, I'm calling this discussion closed,

with consensus saying keep the status quo ante,
1. the commons here keeping the lower case.
Imho, to untangle either site convention needs someone with BOT privileges and while an annoyance, this task would certainly be low on a priority list of such needs. // FrankB 18:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing for FrankB. The category names are consistent within Iran, and there's no particular reason to prefer upper case P. ghouston (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Animals by country & Category:Flora by country

These two categories plus all their subcategories should be renamed to "xxx by region". They are not all countries. The problem stems from the fact political boarders make terrible divisions when talking about nature. Scientific literature, the English Wikipedia (to some extent), and species checklists are done by region. Most of the time these are countries since natural factors (like bodies of water) usually are what causes us to place a border somewhere, but sometimes they're not. Using "by country" greatly limits what categories we can use. What makes the most sense is sometimes not allowed simply because of a naming convention. Rocket000 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Category:Animals by region and Category:Flora by region already exist. Having both is over-categorization. Rocket000 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about these categories that always puzzled me: e.g. Category:Animals by country is it meant to include "pictures of animals taken in country x" or only species categories? -- User:Docu at 07:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be treated like people categories. "Animals of xxx" refers to animals that naturally live there just like "people of xxx" (or "people from xxx") refers to their country of origin (or possibly citizenship but doesn't apply to animals), not simply where they were when someone took a picture. Even though we have giant pandas in the US (zoos), we wouldn't say they are a animal of the US, would we? So, taking that logic into account, species categories should be added to these categories, not images themselves.. yet that's not really the current practice (a lot thanks to categorization bots, though). I guess the whole system needs an overhaul. Rocket000 (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find it useful that the images in Category:Spit Island (Midway Atoll) can be found through a location category and not just by searching for "Spit Island" in various species categories. -- User:Docu at 08:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's a location category. If you're looking for images taken there, then you go to that category. It's part of a whole different tree and you're not looking for any species in particular. Anyway, that's not something I'm wishing to change with this request. Back to the topic, if I wanted to make a "Animals of Spit Island" category, it would fit in "by region" but not "by country". Rocket000 (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to decide how it's to be called if we aren't sure what is meant to be in there.

One could create a subcategory for animals in Category:Spit Island (Midway Atoll) and one has to decide if it should include images or just subcategories for species.

IMHO, Animals on Spit Island would fit well into a "by country" category.

If you want to group species categories by geographic distribution according to Wikipedia, IMHO, "Geographic distribution of animals by country/continent/region" is preferable to "Animals by x". -- User:Docu at 10:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like you're talking about maps or something and not the animals themselves. Rocket000 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "Animals of x" contains only subcategories by species (rather than "Species Y in X") that is the type of mapping that is being done. -- User:Docu at 11:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not planning on changing the contents of these categories so let's base the name on how it is now (ad likely will remain). Both images, categories, and galleries are in these categories. Rocket000 (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually I guess I have to start a new thread for that. -- User:Docu at 11:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As all subcategories of "animals by country" are in the form "animals of 'country' ", it seems logical that it should be "animals by country". The categories of Category:Animals by region seem to be mainly "by continent", so it would seem logical to name it that way too. The stray Belgian one can be moved to "Animals of Belgian". -- User:Docu at 11:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not all countries. That is the whole purpose of this request. For example, we have Category:Animals of the Mediterranean Sea, Category:Animals of Central Africa, Category:Animals of the Belgian coast, Category:Animals of the Arctic, Category:Animals of Southeast Asia, Category:Pandas in Ocean Park, Hong Kong, Category:Fauna of Asia Temperate, Category:Flora of Middle Europe, Category:Flora of West Himalaya, Category:Flora of North Ossetia-Alania... I don't understand what's wrong with "region" as it includes countries as well. It's just a more appropriate name. Rocket000 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends what you want to do, if you would use just region categories that don't include any subregions, "by region" might work better. Otherwise, I'm not sure if it's worth combining the "by country" categories with the others. Rather than using the standard "by continent" suggested earlier, "by continent or ocean" would probably work better. -- User:Docu at 23:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subregions are regions just like subcategories are categories. What about "location" or "place" or "area"... anything. "By country" is just so limiting. I've tried to work in this area but it's too hard to organize it the way it is. We shouldn't try it force a unnatural category tree just because "by country"/"by continent" is the standard. We can make a new standard that makes more sense for this topic. Also, as you noticed, bodies of water are included here too. Rocket000 (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent reset) I think that we are facing two problems here.

People seem to be programmed to subdivide the whole world always in political/administrative subdivisions, which are the most formal organisation known to most people. No matter how you organise things, people will always tend to create by country categories. Those subdivisions don't map very well on geographic subdivisions, for example mapping France, that has territories on 4 or 5 continents cannot be mapped correctly on continents.
The term "region" is one of the most wide terms here and can be anything: a couple of cities, a couple of districts or provinces, geo-regions, mountain regions, national and international, climate regions, historical regions, ... Most people have a specific region (type) in mind and seem to have problems combining them with other types of regions.

I guess that the best solution would be to further subdivide Category:Ecozones, Category:Ecoregions or maybe bioregions to contain the needed nature/animals cats in the political/administrative regions one need to compose it. Carol did a great job on that already. --Foroa (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to one or the other category that was listed for discussion, is there anything specific you are suggesting? -- User:Docu at 07:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish carol was still here. She understood the problem and tried to make it work (and it does beautifully for some botany areas, the job's just not complete on the larger scale). I'm not suggesting we mix the ecozone/biocountry ones with the political division ones. Yet, anyway. They're so similar that we can't completely separate them. I just want something broader and more flexible than country. If there's a "xxx of the Caribbean" or "xxx of East Asia" or "xxx of the Pacific Ocean", I want a place to put it. It's still using well known "man-made" divisions, unlike Caribbean Biocountry for example. "region" is the best word I can come up with, but maybe "by location" would be better, given the second point Foroa made? Or should I give up because the "by country" habit is too hard to break. That's what people want to categorize by even when it's not the most logical choice. Rocket000 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carol has been passing by a couple of days ago. Locations is even more diffuse than regions. I would prefer to continue, as in WWF en:Terrestrial ecozone, the Ecozone, Biozones, bioregions logic and naming. A bit more complex but at least much different from the others. --Foroa (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "by region" is preferable. Even worse when categories for administrative subdivisions of countries are created. Also "Animals by country" would need to be "Fauna by country" to be consistent with "Flora by country". --Elekhh (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both, region and country categories, have their advantages and should be used parallely. Of course ecoregions may be ecologically more meaningful, but also less known to the general public. Countries have man-made borders (just like the ecoregion definitions are man-made and disputable), but they are still important for fauna and flora, e.g. in the context of conservation. Print floras and faunas often are focussed on countries. Marco Schmidt (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We need a "xxx by 'geopolitical entity'" (if you think "country" is a bad term), for simple reasons like a) to parallel other "by country" categories (it is actually one of the meta-categorization schemes that work very well), b) because political borders are important for conservation biology etc and c) to interface with Wikipedia categories. But we also need a "xxx by region" category, because natural (biogeographic) borders are not identical to political borders. These two approaches can be combined/interfaced. I tried to draw up a guideline, starting at Category:Birds by region and then going down to the country categories. It should work well; I have not had major problems. Other taxa require different approaches though, and that is why the WWF ecoregions only work well for plants (they are based on phytogeography). So the regionalization should be taxon-specific; there will be enough overlap that the commoner regions and sub-regions can get separate categories (e.g. Category:Animals of Africa).

By combining a "by country" and a "by region" approach, we wil also be able to handle regions that are not officially recognized countries. These would essentially be treated the same as particular habitat types, e.g. Category:Animals of the Pantanal. Politically disputed areas can be handled in much the same way; even though Kurdistan for example is not a country at present, having both a country and a biogrographic category tree that intermesh allows to deal with Category:Birds of Kurdistan (by simply treating it as a "region").

But the first thing would be to straighten out the "animal/plant" vs "fauna/flora" problem. I can only see one way to do this - apply the English terms throughout (because the fauna/flora dichotomy is unscientific, fungi and protists and possibly bacteria cannot be handled with it). Once we have converted everything to animals/plants/fungi/protists/(bacteria) we can see how to best sort this.

A "by region only" approach is unworkable because too many categories will have 200+ items of content. It also pointlessly disregards localization information given in image descriptions, which is almost exclusively by-country or by-subdivision-of-country. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Unfortunately, while CarolSpear's attempt was nice, it didn't work and it violates category guidelines as we have them now by producing a double- or triple-redundancy between the "biocountry", "biota" and "nature" categories. Many of these categories have since been deleted of CfD'd, "nature of..." being the default main category.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well than, this is the kind of stuff we're getting, endless spam IMO.... --ELEKHH^T 12:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That example is caused by a misunderstanding of how the category system works. Not all Ceratonia siliqua are, for example, from Syria, and the subject has no place in that category. They should simply be deleted, and perhaps a nicely worded note to the person making the mistake, explaining how it works, will prevent it happening in the future. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That person has been explained how the category system works a dozen times including by myself, but I see little progress. Maybe you wish to have a try yourself. --ELEKHH^T 21:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO to the term "region" which is too fuzzy. On Commons we have the better term "location" which is subcategorized (by continent, by country, by city...) which are themselves subcategorized. We should avoid the term "region" internationaly, unless it is used within specific countries which have regions as premiary or secondary administrative units, or as cultural areas without clear border; some national or international organisations also have various definitions bout what they call "regions" in their own nomenclatures: these regions MUST be scoped, otherwise they are complete non-sense !!! So I strongly object to the proposal. In fact there should be nowhere in Commons any categories named with unscoped "regions". verdy_p (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for a change. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Rivers by country by name

This category was emptied and deleted some time ago without prior discussion by an administrator. This despite there being a series of logical subcategories.

Point 1. Metacategory

The category should be restored and populated with the corresponding subcategories. There isn't really any logical reason to delete the meta category as long as there are subcategories. Categories are, e.g.:

Please list any missing ones in the section below.

Point 2: Naming of subcategories for individual countries'

Subcategories for individual countries should be name "Rivers of <country name> by name".

Point 3. Subcategories for individual countries

Proposal 3A: Subcategories should be made for all countries with river categories

Proposal 3B: Subcategories for countries should be made once a country has subcategories by region/subnational entities. These are:

Please list any missing ones in the section below.

Proposal 3B part 1: existing subcategories "by name" for countries should be kept
Proposal 3B part 2: new subcategories should be created for all countries that have subcategories by region/subnational entity
Proposal 3B part 3: exisiting subcategories "by name" for countries not broken down by region should redirected to the country level.
Proposal 3B part 4: Administrators should maintain and expand the "by name" categories.

Point 4. Large countries

Proposal 4A: even for large countries the "by name" category should be on the country level

Proposal 4B: for large countries, the "by name" category could be created on a region/subnational entity level

Point 5: Scope of categories for specific rivers

This proposal/discussion does not address the question which type of images/files/subcategories should be included in individual river categories.

Point 6. Team work

Deletions should be discussed in advance here at "categories for discussion". Unilateral deletions hurt the project. One should avoid pasting the same arguments on multiple talk pages and seek to initiate a discussion at "categories for discussion" instead.

Please comment one the various points of the proposal below (not inline). -- User:Docu at 12:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

additional categories to which this may apply

Please list these here, ideally noting to which point/part of the proposal they apply -- User:Docu at 12:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- User:Docu at 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rivers of Russia by name (now a redirect).
Category:Rivers in Bosnia and Herzegovina by name (now a move request).

Removal of "rivers by regional entity" in small and medium countries

The majority of countries live hapily without a further categorisation of rivers per country subdivision. So there are several "rivers by country by name" categories that are sitting there for 22 months without being populated.

Commons main goal is to categorise and find images. For most countries, adding categories "rivers by province/department/... " is not helping at all making better categorisation or make the finding of river related media easier. It generates however unnecessary complication of the "river by country" categorisation scheme:

one main category allows for all what we need to find easily rivers and their related pictures
people don't have to know the country (and its subdivisions) to find and categorise river related pictures
So far, I have not seen a single case where country subdivision for rivers help in finding or placing river related media, to the contrary.

It is not the role of commons to show in what provinces precisely flow such and such a river: interwiki's can take care of that without any effort nor maintenance. It is frustrating in many countries how some external people create a subcategorisation system, fill in a couple of items and leave the real work for the locals that don't need it as has been demonstrated on several occasions.

So, before all, we have to ask the question if and when we will need rivers by country subdivisions as this will condition the subsequent discussions.

So, in a second case, and as a test case, I would like to see the question if we are not better of to merge in category:rivers of Italy the category:Rivers of Italy by region so that all problems are solved at once and that there is no longer a need for all sorts of extra categories and complications. Here, I would say that the Italians have to decide as such categorisation needs some detailed knowledge of the country.

This dimension of my original requests (reducing categorisation) has been neglected in the rather tendentious proposal above. I will integrate it soon if needed. --Foroa (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cats needing adaptation

Category:Rivers of the Netherlands may be adapted (split and moved) to fit in the Rivers by country by name cat. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest to consult the Dutch community about that. A year ago, there was a massive movement in the Netherlands to add everywhere a province category system, but I noticed that this has been changed back in several categories that are not stricly tied to precise locations. --Foroa (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

An exemple why I like to have this type of category by country by name => Category:Rivers of the United States has many subcategories, but only a few Rivers. A parallel Category:Rivers of the United States by name generates spontaneously a list of rivers by name, having an active link. I have no meaning about the specific details asked. --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(also answer to Foroa higher up): I find geographical subdivision (provinces etc.) categories usefull. However, a disadvantage is that images often are too deep in the cat-tree. The Rivers by country by name category as a high parent category permits to jump several levels of categorisation. So one can apply there a more effective catscan or cross-catscan. In that sense I should like to have the Category:Rivers of the Netherlands split into one cat containing all subcategories not being rivers, and one cat showing only Rivers (by name). If the extra work is worth it? I don't know. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Category:Rivers of the Netherlands is an interesting sample as it combines two structures within one: "by city" and "by name". It would be fairly easy to re-arrange it as you suggested and would gain in overall clarity. -- User:Docu at 17:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging is not as simple as it looks. See also Category:Streams in the Netherlands. Translations are sometimes equivoque: Stream may be beek (ruisseau) or rivier (rivière, fleuve) or wetering (bief, canal de drainage). Even for me the dutch water categories are not always evident. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Category:Streams in the Netherlands is not a subcategory of Category:Rivers of the Netherlands. While the point you raise is important and needs to be reviewed, I prefer to limit the scope of this discussion per point 5, the answer to the other questions doesn't necessarily depend on this. -- User:Docu at 18:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metacategories "by name" are commonly used at Commons and their purposes were manytimes explained in many discussions. My opinion to those proposals:

Ad 1: I agree fully. It's no reason to delete this standard and useful metacategory.
Ad 2: I agree fully. It's in keeping with the prevalent usage and the previous Cfd discussion.
Ad 3: I don't agree with the variant 3A, I agree fully with the variant 3B, part 2 and subsequently part 4. The part 1 (and provisionally part 3) should be applied for countries that foundation of subcategories of rivers by region or similar subdivisions is probably expected into the future. In case of others (i. e. very small) countries, the category "rivers by name" should be deleted. The discussion how large countries should have subcategories of rivers by region (subdivisions) should be consensually finished earlier than whatever will be deleted. Creating of such subcategories is admissible even without discussion.
Ad 4: I agree in principle with 4A (and rarely and hardly with 4B) but I have comments. The decisive criterion shouldn't be itself the largeness of the country, but the actual and excepted quantity of files and rivers and subcategories. The most relevant criterion is whether there exist the paralel categorization branch "by region" or by other subdivisions at the propriate level. Also the character of subdivisions can be decisive: some subdivisions have traditionally and historically a character of countries, some subdivisions are only ephemeral artificial units. Countries which are historical countries or part of a today's federation should be conceived as countries.
Ad 5: of course. Is there some specific systematical problem? Could you give us a link to the relevant discussion eventually?
Ad 6: I agree and support very strongly.

--ŠJů (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An additional question. The categories "Rivers in (country)" in such cases that meta-subcategories will not be created will perform the task of "rivers by name" category essentially. Should be such categories inserted into the "Rivers by country by name" metacategory and therewithal into "Rivers by country"? --ŠJů (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a growing problem with overcategorization here. We're trying to fix it with more categories. This doesn't fix the initial problem; in fact it makes it worse. The rational behind "by name" categories makes sense but only because the tree is too deep. I keep finding and more "by something" categories; "by name" or "rivers by river" etc. are the worst. Have we forgotten the what the main category system is supposed to be? It is "by name". I can't think any more logical thing to do. "by country", "by year", etc. all have a place as alternate ways to browse. For most things. However when talking about geography, "by country" or better yet, "by region" (which usually starts with continents and works down to country, city, or body of water, etc.) should be the main system we use. After you get to a specific area (depends of the amount of content we have), then you go by name. If it's so important to have to flatten the tree, then the tree has too much categorization, too much separation. Let's fix that instead. Rocket000 (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amstel is currently only in a regional category (Category:Rivers in Amsterdam) and a country category (Category:Rivers of the Netherlands). Foroa suggests the removal of regional categories for smaller countries. I'd assume this would include Category:Rivers in Amsterdam. How would you go about this? What would you do if there were 999 other rivers? -- User:Docu at 13:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has one ever studied the problem of loops in cat-trees spanning several levels? The loop is evident in a one-level case like : Category:Val d'Aran -> Category:Occitània -> Category:Val d'Aran bus is often also present in more-level cases. What is the risk of cattree-loops here? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try catgraph. I think it's fairly frequent and probably bound to happen, also when combining location based categories and landforms. If you know which level you are on when starting out, it's probably less a problem. -- User:Docu at 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting indeed, see application to Val d'Aran: [5] --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To see it loop: [6] -- User:Docu at 14:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

@Docu: If there were 999 other rivers I would first try to subdivide into smaller regions if possible. 1 level of them. I don't think 200 or so is too much for one category. If that doesn't work, well then we would be stuck with a 1000 member category until someone comes up with a better way. Having a "by name" category would simply duplicate it. Rocket000 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, Category:Amstel would end up in Category:Water in Amsterdam and Category:Rivers of the Netherlands and fill it with, e.g. 100 others and 80 that are not rivers? -- User:Docu at 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands have a major part under the sea level and is special, why you have categories:"rivers and canals in ..." and "water in ...". The Amstel is not in Amsterdam only.

It took me 75 minutes to compile and insert (but not name tune) a complete "list by name" in category:Rivers of the Netherlands, category:Rivers of Italy, category:Lakes of Canada and category:Lakes of Canada by name. Those lists offer the advantage that one sees the missing rivers/lakes in red. A priori, those lists are complete, static (they don't invent new rivers), eliminate the need for increased complexity (multiple categories) while decreasing user mistakes and consistency errors. Missing names can be properly defined, thereby decreasing the chance on naming errors. Preparing and tuning such a list can be done in hours, taking less time and energy than this whole discussion, not to mention the gain in maintenance time. --Foroa (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you prepare and tune the list for the Netherlands? The Canadian ones seem to be off topic. -- User:Docu at 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of lists like that. It's kinda how we do taxonomy. It provides a overview regardless of the actual category tree and we can see what we're missing. Navigation templates is one thing the Wikipedias do really well. We should look more into that instead categorizing more and more. (The only thing I would do different is hide the "Category:" part.) Rocket000 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having lists is a good thing in general. I'm not too sure that a navigation template on every category is that helpful though and it doesn't necessarily make it easier to maintain. Even if there is a link to a river from a hidden category description, the actual category you are creating might have no relation to that country. Place naming is more country specific than taxonomy. -- User:Docu at 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocket, back to the (virtual sample) Category:Amstel, what shall we do while Category:Water in Amsterdam fills up with 100 other rivers and 80 that are not rivers? -- User:Docu at 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Category:Rivers in Amsterdam? Rocket000 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foroa suggested to delete regional subcategories for smaller countries and your outline seemed to support this view. -- User:Docu at 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's only one subcat, then yes. You asked what happens when it fills up with 100 other rivers and 80 that are not rivers. Also, I was more or less saying we shouldn't have "by name" categories; "(of|in) whatever" is similar but has a more natural naming system that's not (usually) redundant. Rocket000 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, in fact you are ok with Category:Amstel being in two categories, e.g. Category:Rivers in Amsterdam and Category:Rivers of the Netherlands, but you wouldn't want the second category to be named Category:Rivers of the Netherlands by name. -- User:Docu at 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the edit-conflict. No, I wouldn't put it in both Category:Rivers in Amsterdam and Category:Rivers of the Netherlands since the latter's a parent category. I don't think a flatten tree is necessary here in the same way I don't think we need a "Rivers of Europe" to contain every river of Europe. It should really only contain subcategories and possibly multi-country spanning rivers. What's next "Rivers of Earth"? I question the usefulness of that. Rocket000 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in Category:Rivers of the Netherlands you would keep combining subcategories about specific rivers with subcategories about rivers in regions? (None suggested the other option you brought up BTW) -- User:Docu at 17:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with the appropriate sort key, that would make the most sense, IMHO. Rocket000 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Amstel flows besides Amsterdam too, so it has to be in a higher cat too. Anyway, most rivers flow in several provinces (an average Dutch province is 60 by 60 km: 4 times New York City, 20 % of New York metropolian area)

... you would keep combining subcategories about specific rivers with subcategories about rivers in regions? (None suggested the other option you brought up BTW) ...: that is what we proposed for rivers in Italy.

It's too early to talk about navigation templates. --Foroa (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have to be in a higher cat, but not "too". Just put it in the most appropriate one. Rocket000 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list Foroa added is red, red, red; and what about category:Dommel and several others? fr:Projet Pays-Bas has already realises a longer list: fr:Liste des cours d'eau des Pays-Bas. Also, in Foroa's list, many red names arise. A category by country by name would be a pretty blue list of non-empty cat's. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an advantage that there are red and blue links, but we can't really be sure that we don't have categories for the red links and the blue links refer to the correct rivers.
In general, I think lists can be useful to start out with, but I'm not sure how or if they could fit into Commons categories. Thus my question how it was compiled. If it is based on Wikipedia article titles, I suppose the next step would be to ask how Commons category names should match these. If it uses CatScan at Commons for checking, the next question which CatCan function. -- User:Docu at 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am reworking/checking the Dutch list (from a nl:Lijst van rivieren in Nederland, but it is normal that there is red, red, red: only 25 % of the rivers seem to exist on commons. I guess that would be a challenging bot job for checking/refreshing through interwiki's. --Foroa (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume that we can get a comprehensive from Wikipedia (with correct spellings/no typos). For comparing it with Commons, how do you use CatScan at Commons for this? -- User:Docu at 11:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC), edited 11:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, there is no loop, and a deep catscan (going from level 3 to 6 to 9) starting with a one-level-up parent cat gives: [7] . But often cattrees and catscans are more complex. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already in your sample (for streams), it doesn't list just categories for specific streams. Thus my question. -- User:Docu at 12:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for matching purposes in hand-made rework-documents as Foroa suggests, the not river names can be deleted in your helpdocument. If there were a Category:Rivers in the Netherlands by name, a catcrosscan would serve cat-maintainance purposes. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the CatScan result has to be reworked manually, we probably didn't structure the category as it should be. -- User:Docu at 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this CFD discussion

As shown here, this is a follow on discussion of:

Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Some of categories "by alphabet" that has been prematurily closed without proper consensus nor conclusion in terms of definition and needs of meta cats
Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/09/Category:Rivers in Italy by river (closed without consensus nor conclusion) followed by Category talk:Rivers of Italy by name that has been interrupted and redirected to this page
Several reintegration requests for superfluous and misnamed categories:

It is clear that it makes no sense to have a discussion about the organisation of this type of categories before having established the real needs and alternate solutions as shown above. I suggest to discuss first the following item. The remaining points can be adressed when this is concluded. --Foroa (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary categories

These categories are deemed unnecessary and add only complexity to the project. --Foroa (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you "deem" them "unnecessary"? -- User:Docu at 12:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation of lists

Here's how I normally create lists:

I grab somewhere a list of the most pertinent wikipedia (in wiki format)
I paste it in a column in Excel
I do mass replacement for formatting (taking away bullets and other formatting stuff)
Data sorting is easy in Excel (if need be, the column can be copied in a second sorting column where for example all the words river or lake are removed)
For checking, I generate a category list with catscan and copy it in another column
- for longer lists, I add or delete cells in the last column as to name align it with the first column
For formatting, general replaces work most of the time, but it is easy to create macro's connected with keyboard short cuts to insert a special formatting sequence, such as [[:categorie:
Copy and paste back on commons

Conversion tools: There are tools for converting Excel or here but I have no real experience with them. --Foroa (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad++ is great for regex search & replace, alphabetizing, vertical (column) editing and diff comparison. Rocket000 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Foroa: This can be done with Word as well, and for converting table to text I use as separation * or # which I remove from the final text; ex. Category: Lower Navarre in wikitext, with names linking to categories. Thanks yet for the wikitable format tips you gave me there. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with regex. I found Excel easier in the sense that it is easier to manipulate/pivot tables, insert columns that contain for example a pipe argument ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foroa (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring Rivers by country by name at the expense of the currently extant Rivers by name by country, which is filled with categories in country by name order. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Isle of Anglesey

Reasons for discussion request -- This whole category with all its sub-categories is a duplicate of Category:Anglesey. It is empty (as are the sub-cats, I think). Clearly we do not need two categories for the same place. Even if there is an argument for using the term 'Isle of Anglesey' (official name) in place of 'Anglesey' (much more common), the work involved in transferring many hundreds of files and sorting all this out seems to me to be a burden we could do without as we are already struggling to cope with the several thousand unsorted/miscategoried/undercategoried geograph files in the Wales ~~category~~ categories. If a bot can do it, fine, but I certainly have no intention of doing so. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also en:Anglesey, Staffordshire. Multichill (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created all or most of these (sub)categories for the Geograph project along with hundreds of other categories. I have no strong feelings for either of the names but I ofcourse agree we should not have duplicates. I think the bot failed to fill images in the new categories because the top category was named "Anglesey" instead of "Isle of Anglesey" (and images probably ended up in "Wales" because of that). We have bots that can move images in a few minutes if it is decided to use the official name so it is not a problem. I will check later for images in "Wales" related to "Anglesey". --MGA73 (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As they are empty, I think we could just redirect them to the existing ones.
To sort out the files, this might help identify some of the files to be moved. The exact selection might need some tweaking though. -- User:Docu at 14:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories should only be redirected if the other name is the best one. --MGA73 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "the better", not "the best". Empty categories shouldn't be created instead of moving current categories. -- User:Docu at 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, this was created about a month ago and then simply left empty without a single file and without anyone else being aware of its existence. 'Best' is a matter of judgement and opinion - do we go for the official name, which we arguably should do, or the most common one which most people will look for? Anatiomaros (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a bot can do the work I've no objection. The official name for the local authority area is Ynys Môn (Welsh) / Isle of Anglesey (English) so there is a strong argument for that, although plain 'Anglesey' is most commonly used in English. The category was recently moved to 'Isle of Anglesey' on English Wikipedia and 'Ynys Môn' (='Isle of Anglesey') is what we have on Welsh Wikipedia, although it's often referred to simply as 'Môn'. As for the images, you will find a lot of them at Category:Gwynedd as GeographBot seems to have taken the old pre-1996 Gwynedd county as being 'Gwynedd'; the old/preserved county included all of Anglesey and half of Conwy County Borough. Any bot work will have to take GeographBot's bad category work into account (and if it could transfer some files to Conwy county that would be nice too - must be hundreds still in there!). Anatiomaros (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started doing some cleanup, e.g. Category:Roads in Anglesey. As far as naming is concerned, I'm ok with whatever seems best to Anatiomaros. -- User:Docu at 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx Docu. As for the name, I really don't mind but if we are to be consistent we should use the official designation, I suppose. The most important thing is to get some order before we get swamped by the next batch(es) of geograph files. Anatiomaros (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a preference for the official designation over the most common one. It's just that we start out from the official one if we aren't too sure about the most common one. BTW, I wouldn't want to re-do this for the next batch ;) -- User:Docu at 01:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there's no policy as such then I suppose the easiest option is to keep the present category. There is no confusion likely - unlike 'Conwy', which is a town, and the county of the same name (several other cases, including one which I've started to sort - Category:Caerphilly - where the town was home to all the county borough sub-cats and still has a 100 or so files of forests, fields etc; now created and half-populated Category:Caerphilly County Borough, if your bot fancies some work...). As you say, now is the time to decide. Easiest option: status quo, but if people feel strongly for the other option that's OK by me. I'll bid you goodnight now as I'm burning the midnight oil (as usual!) and "sleep on it" till tomorrow. Anatiomaros (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must admit, I tend to go with the category that matches the page on English Wikipedia, which would be Isle of Anglesey. But...it all depends on whether a bot can do the work. The categories are a hopeless mess since the Geograph uploads. I've just spent a month having a go at some of the ones in Greater Manchester and Lancashire, and I've barely touched them! Just a thought, for the time being, why not make Anglesey a subcategory of Isle of Anglesey: it doesn't require any work, and means that any sorting can be done if and when people have the time. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread: redirecting duplicate, to match enwiki/initially created category. -- User:Docu at 07:11, 26 March 2010 (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.

Category:Moere station

wrong name, should be Moere_train_station" Wiebevl (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:33, 28 March 2010 (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.

Category:26 year old men

Category is out of scope. It is quite pointless to have a category for 26 or 56 or 23 year old people because man gets older and such categories will never show its intended content correctly. --80.187.97.44 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless cat. Not pertinent. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have a system of classification of people by age, & we need a system for classifying anatomy by age of subject; it's not hard to understand the potential uses of images of ppl @ specific chronological ages

also; the arguement made by the anonymous nominator ("It is quite pointless to have a category for 26 or 56 or 23 year old people because man gets older and such categories will never show its intended content correctly.") is incorrect:

the only images being categorized by chronological age should the be ones where age is given in the file info.

the pictures aren't going to get older; at least not in this universe, & not counting Dorian Gray. XD

(& for the record, i was not given a deletion notice by the nominator, therefore improper procedure as well)

Lx 121 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, people age at different rates. One 15-year-old male may be shaving while another is still waiting on his first chest hair. It's entirely subjective to assign certain characteristics to different ages (which will be part of the process of placing images into "age categories"). The categories would represent original research gone awry. Blurpeace 02:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment on "age categories" is in relation to Lx 121's, "it's not hard to understand the potential uses of images of ppl @ specific chronological ages", though I am confused by the contradiction made through, "the only images being categorized by chronological age should the be ones where age is given in the file info." Could you clarify once more what the categories will be used for? Blurpeace 03:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this nomination also concerns the categories below Category:Human beings, by chronological age. Blurpeace 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as it's used for images of men at age 26 rather than for subcategories of persons born in 1984 or 1983. -- User:Docu at 13:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Empty. The category contained one unused file which was deleted by me for beeing out of project scope (non-notable user without contributions/user site) Polarlys (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2010 (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.

Category:Images from the Game Developers Conference

Redundant category. All files in this category are also in Category:Game Developers Conference 2010, which serves the same purpose. This category just seems superfluous to Category:Game Developers Conference 2010 and its parent, Category:Game Developers Conference. -- Sabre (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Commons:Categories#Major categories : Category:Images from the Game Developers Conference is a source category, Category:Game Developers Conference 2010 is a topical category.

The former is intended to keep track of media taken by the GDC people (which is, not necessarily at the GDC, and certainly not only at the 2010 GDC). Could even be hidden.
The latter is intended to categorise media taken at the GDC (which is, not necessarily by the GDC guys ; other people go there too).

See Category:Images from the World Economic Forum and Category:2010 World Economic Forum for an analogous situation.

Jean-Fred (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, valid source category. --Martin H. (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Echinopsis eyriesii

User:Uleli asked me to move all the content to Category:Echinopsis oxygona because Echinopsis eyriesii is only a synonyme. I noticed some recent edits by User:Epibase:

07:24, 6 November 2009: redirect to Echinopsis oxygona
21:25, 22 February 2010: recreating the category
11:57, 23 February 2010: moving a file from Category:Echinopsis oxygona to Category:Echinopsis eyriesii

I'm not a botanist. I would like to hear some qualified opinions before merging these two categories. -- Common Good (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have to be a botanist. :-) I note that wikispecies calls E. eyriesii a synonym, while en: and de: list E. eyriesii as its own species. I think it would be a good bar for busybody reorganizers :-) that wikispecies and the WPs must be made consistent before they are allowed to mess with other people's work here... Stan Shebs (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Both species a mentioned in at least three Wikipedia language versions. -- Common Good (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Post boxes by country

This category appears to replicate Category:Mailboxes by country. Unless there is a good reason for the separate categories then they should be combined, similarly with the sub categories below this. --Keith D (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They ARE different.

A post box (British English and others, also written postbox, known in the United States and Canada as collection box, mailbox, or drop box) is a physical box intended for use by the general public in order to collect outgoing mail (mail sent to a destination).
A letter box, letterbox, letter plate, letter hole, mail slot, or mailbox is a receptacle for receiving incoming mail at a private residence or business.

I agree that the terminology is confusing. We should better go about it as follows:

Create a disambig page where "post box", "mail box" etc will redirect;
Create 2 distinct categs: one for outgoing boxes and one for incoming boxes that the aforementioned page will offer to choose from. -- Wesha (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Letter boxes, but looking at the content of the 2 categories above they do not appear to be following any incoming/outgoing rational. Keith D (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there's no clear explanation at the top of each as of what should belong to it (and a link to the other one, too). How about we fix that first? -- Wesha (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letter boxes looks like it is for incoming main and outgoing mail is covered by the other 2 categories which are a duplicate of each other. You can add a note at the top of the categories and a cross reference but you still only need 2 categories not 3. Keith D (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. So, can you please clearly list in your reply to this which ones you want to keep and which one to delete? So far, I'm confused. Thank you. -- Wesha (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wesha. There should be only two different categories. They are on equal footing and neither of them should be subordinated to the other. The images from the third category (Mail boxes) are to be moved to either of the two categories, and the category should contain a redirection to the Post boxes category. So the images from the three categories should be carefully reorganized into the two categories: (1) Post boxes (for outgoing mail), (2) Letter boxes (for incoming mail). --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up: the general category is Category:Mailboxes, which contains two categories: Category:Letter boxes and Category:Post boxes. The Category:Letter boxes is subdivided into: Category:Letter boxes by country, etc. The Category:Post boxes is subdivided into: Category:Post boxes by country, etc. Let's reorganize it! --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC) The name of the Category:Mailboxes by color category should be changed to Category:Post boxes by color, they are all designated for outgoing mail (only colors of public post boxes can be prescribed by law; every one is free to paint his private letterbox as he pleases). --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wesha and Leonid and support the idea to sort out these categories. --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mailboxes should be subdivided by their purpose. I have some notices:

in the Czech Republic are several types of boxes: outgoing boxes ("post boxes", orange), house letter boxes of inhabitants and small companies (private) but also the third type: official postal blue delivery boxes for incomming letters which are used in villages where letters aren't delivered outside the main road. How should be named a subcategory of such unified incomming boxes? (Don't confuse with PO Boxes.)
also private letter boxes can be categorized by colour, but separately from outgoing post boxes. Also the category "Blue mailboxes" can have subcategories "Blue post boxes" and "Blue letter boxes", as well as for every country should remain the category "Mailboxes in XXX" and should contain subcategories "Post boxes in XXX" and "Letter boxes in XXX".
Inasmuch as those category names aren't unambiguously understandable, we should create some special template(s) to entry of all such categories (somewhat like {{Villages-municipalities}}).

--ŠJů (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at the original statement that the categories 'post box by country' and 'mail box by country' replicate each other, it is correct. The confusion appears to arise as a result of regional differences in English; specifically American English 'mailbox' and British English 'post box'. For me it makes sense to merge the two. The only issue is which regional dialect you use as the category heading. Comming from a British English culture, I would favour British English, but that is a personal preference. Andrew massyn (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a solution was adopted of making Mailboxes a parent category for both Post boxes and Letter boxes. ghouston (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Animals of the Belgian coast

This category contains animal imagery from the Belgian part of the North Sea. Some of the files are from "Belgian coastal waters" and others are from the "Belgian continental shelf". This means saying the content of this category is from the "Belgian coast" is inaccurate. The Belgian part is troublesome too, as do territorial waters include the EEZ?

IMO the best thing to do would be to move the content to Category:Animals of the North Sea - the fact the animals were in the North Sea is what matters, not that they were in the Belgian portion of it.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this cat is wrong. All animals in it were caught (and photographed) by myself at sea. Location is for all BPNS (Belgian part of the North Sea), few of them occur coastal sensu strictu. Using Europe is dodgy too as many of those species do not occur e.g. in the Mediterranean or even Atlantic. The original cats were change over and over again by some uninformed Israeli gang (some have been blocked recently, some pages protected). I'd prefer Animals of Belgium, as that's were they were found (BPNS would do too). Category:Animals of the Belgian coast could stay AFAIMC for strictly coastal and beach finds. The fact that they were in the Belgian part of the North Sea is important IMO as it generates a per country species list. Lycaon (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question I find it odd that you are now moving images that were in this category into Category:Animals of Belgium. Surely as sea creatures they cannot be correctly described as being "Belgium"?.

I understand your comment that they were in the Belgian part of the North Sea (tho it makes it very strange that you are now relocating them in other categories) but a higher level cat as proposed by Nilfanion seems quite sensible. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not relocating, I'm putting them where they always were before the Israeli(s) passed by :-((. Lycaon (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing - I see edit warring on a number of images on this topic. Sad when folk don't just communicate about stuff. However this is a wiki. Maybe "Why are they not Animals of the Belgian coast?" is the question to ask? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as Lycaon states above, these animals were neither stricly coastal or beach finds. Please note that Lycaon offers Category:Animals of the Belgian part of the North Sea as alternative. So far this category does not exist and the most fitting existing category seemed to be Category:Animals of Belgium. I am no biologist but some of my friends are and locations of finds are quite important for them. And I guess that a category spanning the entire North Sea would be too wide. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment for now as I am going out but will return to this. We need to be rather careful with language here. In English the phrase Lycaon offers has connotations of control/ownership. Indeed his behaviour also indicates that. What matters here is to ensure that images can be found be people as easily as possible (within the limitations of Commons systems). As a non marine biologist I would not think of looking for images of marine life in a category that implied land living organisms. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... Category:Animals of the Belgian part of the North Sea could be a member of Category:Animals of the North Sea and of Category:Animals of Belgium. Thereby you would find them through both paths. I am not sure which is the best approach in the general case, how seas and oceans are divided best and how far such divisions should be maintained in the category system. But at least the suggested name Belgian part of the North Sea seems to be a well-defined geographical region. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The North Sea part is definitely unambiguous and should be added, whether that's by use of the BPNS or more directly: The fauna of the N Sea may differ between the northern and southern limits but its much more relevant than the EEZs biologically.

I understand the rationale here for wanting these pictures in a (sub)category for by country listing, but my concern is that is it really accurate to say that almost halfway between Ostend and Harwich is part of Belgium? The EEZ of a nation is distinct from the territory of the nation. For example, I wouldn't put File:Silverpit northwest perspective.jpg in (a subcategory of) Category:United Kingdom, but its in the British part of the North Sea...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals of the North Sea has less than a dozen files, so why do we need a Belgian category in the first place? If there's no acceptable definition of North Sea animals in the general vicinity of Belgium, I suggest just moving all the images to the main category. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be the overarching cat but the North Sea covers quite a spread of climate from south to north and might well need some splitting. I looked at Category:Marine life as I feel it should have that as a high level cat somehow. That is somewhere I would start looking maybe. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Animals of the Belgian part of the North Sea (BPNS) has now been created, so Category:Animals of the Belgian coast should be deleted after all content moved into the new cat. However, I'm not really happy with the BPNS category either for two reasons:

The BPNS is part of the North Sea, it is not part of Belgium. The coast of Belgium is part of Belgium, and arguably out to the 12 mile limit is too, but I would not call the EEZ of a nation part of its territory, so saying an animal from the EEZ is from the nation is wrong.
And in any case, as marine animals, why should these animals be included in by country listings at all? If you combine those two statements, you have marine animals which possibly shouldn't be in country categories, in a category for a nation that they were never were located in in the first place...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The North Sea is divided into exclusive economic zones according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Continental Shelf and additional agreements. No part of the North Sea belongs to international waters and thereby every point of the North Sea can be associated with a sovereign state. These territorial waters are also used for the Marine Spatial Planning Initiative by UNESCO which assigns planning responsibilities according these divisions (see here for Belgium). To perform this planning, marine research is important. To quote from the referenced MSPI page for Belgium:

The main drivers for spatial planning in Belgium came from the demand for offshore wind energy and international requirements for the protection and conservation of ecologically and biologically valuable areas.

Marine spatial planning in Belgium aims at achieving both economic and ecological objectives, including the development of offshore wind farms, the delimitation of marine protected areas, a policy plan for sustainable sand and gravel extraction, the mapping of marine habitats, protection of wrecks valuable for biodiversity, and the management of land-based activities affecting the marine environment. Together, these objectives provided the basis for a Master Plan.

Given all this, it still seems appropriate for me to have a category system for the North Sea (among possible others) that follows these exclusive economic zones and where individual categories are sorted below the North Sea and below appropriate by-country subcategories. All this would follow international law and would also make sense to marine biologists (otherwise it wouldn't have been suggested by Lycaon). --AFBorchert (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the EEZ is not territorial waters, that's only the bit out to the 12 mile limit. It is not the sovereign territory of that nation, there is merely jurisdictional control, the name EEZ reflects this (exclusive economic rights). Points within the EEZ can be associated with the nation, but are not part of that nation. The sub-categorisation, and the justification for it (the by-country listing), implies that the EEZ contained within Belgium, which it isn't. And you haven't addressed the other point which is why should marine animals be associated with a specific nation anyway?

I am somewhat concerned about the broader picture here - not a problem in an area with settled jurisdictions: An extreme example would be Russia and the North Pole, but more seriously there a lot more disputes in EEZs than in territory generally.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2013 (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.

Category:Countries by category

pointless category: purpose of this category is unclear and it is not embedded in Commons' category structure. The category was created on 30 January 2009 by AgainErick. Since then no further edits were made. --High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a bad idea. The problem is that nobody followed the creator footprints. But, regularly filled, it could be a very useful tool for surfing on Commons.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a certain intersection with Category:Categories by country and Category:Categories by country subdivision respectively. --High Contrast (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the basic idea is to have a flat list of all "by country categories" used in a specific country. This is very useful as people are creating "by country" categories all the time, many of them being unlinked to the country and unknown most of the time. You might have other suggestions for that problem ? --Foroa (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Categories of countries which contain categories should not have "Categories of" in their names. Is is obvious and redondant in Commons, bcause they always contains other categories. See Category:Categories of Belgium; this name should be Category:Belgium. It's just a {{Metacat}}. Regards, Jack ma (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if all the 900 categories in Category:Categories of Belgium should be added to Category:Belgium directly. Precisely because Category:Categories of Belgium is a metacategory, these shouldn't be in there. Personally, I would probably have chosen other names both for Category:Countries by category and its subcategories. Docu at 07:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose moving this thing to e.g. category:Belgium. This category:categories of Belgium seems some sort of meta-category. It should either 1/ stay as it is or 2/ be removed. But it should NOT be moved into category:Belgium. The latter is the root of a clean hierarchical category tree. All categories in the category:categories of Belgium meta-category should be somewhere under category:Belgium, probably many levels deep, but that's how things always are on commons. They should NOT just be dumped in category:Belgium, as that would make category:Belgium a complete mess. I'm not sure what the point is of this metacategory, I think a discussion can be found elsewhere (?), it can either stay or be removed, but certainly should not be merged into the existing category trees ! --LimoWreck (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many categories are meta-categories (i.e. they only contain categories); they don't need "Categories of" in their names. Typically, "Buildings in xxx" category is directly under each country. All countries are (or should be) metacategories. Also, the fact that there are 900 subcategories in it means that there is something wrong. Maybe this category should only contain "... by ... in Belgium" categories, which I would understand then. Presently, it is a list of all possible categories under Belgium, not hierarchised, on one level, which is redondant and difficult to maintain. I now understand that all 900 subcategories exist somewhere under Category:Belgium, so "move to" Belgium is not correct, because they exist already there; so why not just delete it ? Jack ma (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a meta category according to {{Metacat}} "Categories by country Belgium" would probably fit best, but it does sound odd. Docu at 12:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is actually an interesting structure. It provides a possible solution to a problem we just discussed recently: the difficulty to determine the geographic location of a category and navigate with that. See the location related discussion between Foroa and me at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010Jun#Translation tool. This obviously applies more to locality and building categories, but we could attempt to solve it this way. Personally, I would rather have a software based solution, but it seems unlikely that anything would be implemented soon. Docu at 07:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand the utility to have all categories on one level. I also would prefer a software solution... (because this kind of "by category" can fit to any category, which makes, if we apply it everywhere (at each sublevel, of each subcategory), a tremendous number of redondancies and much heaviness... If we decide to keep it, why not change the name into a better one, like Category:Flat lists of categories, and Category:Flat lists of categories in Belgium ? Jack ma (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There IS already a correct way of handling this - by affixing a "by alphabet" to the category. As in Category:Categories by country by alphabet or Category:People by occupation by alphabet. That has the benefit of being the one-level "flat" structure that Foroa is seeking, while also being much easier to understand. So I propose Category:Belgium categories by alphabet or Category:Categories of Belgium by alphabet instead. Ingolfson (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Flat list. Category:Categories of Belgium confuses many readers and editors. Putting "flat list" in the titles of such categories might clarify things:

Category:Flat list of Belgium categories

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the generic category Category:Flat lists. Though its use should be very restrictive, and an extensive use may create "monsters" and "disasters"

. A software solution looks better (see further). Jack ma (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Ingolfson pointed out, there is a general convention for this type of categories. Except that it's not "by alphabet", but "by name". In this case, I think it could be worth using an indication, preferably a prefix, to show that it's location specific. Docu at 06:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Categories of Belgium is basically a subset of Category:Categories by country by alphabet. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. How about "Categories by country of location: Belgium"? Docu at 07:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the problem is a lack of English fluency. People are trying to use "Categories of" and "Categories in" in ways that are not based on any consistent rules. See: ~~Search for "Categories of ...". Search for "Categories in ...".~~ --Timeshifter (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the searches:

intitle:"Categories of"

intitle:"Categories in"

--Timeshifter (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about Category:Categories related to Belgium --WlaKom (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of categories like category:Categories of Belgium

First, I have to say that I am doing this exercise in Belgium because I happen to be more familiar with its structure, this should however serve a broader purpose.

Several times per week, there is someone creating a new category "xxx in Belgium" in a "by country" category, fills in a couple of sample images and leaves. Most of the time such categories are not connected to anything in the Belgian category structures. Once or twice per year, Multichill runs a bot that improves such connections or flags the missing ones.

A couple of times per month, someone creates a category "xxx in Belgium" without connecting it to the related "xxx by country" categories.

If we search for an item at the country level, we have to wade through all sorts of category trees to check if it could possibly exists. A flat list is much easier to find, especially if you are not sure what would be the keyword.

With the building of Category:Categories of Belgium, I restructured already 150 badly formed/categorised "xxx by country" categories, discovered already 30 or more categories that should be "xxx by country" categories, connected several "xxx in Belgium" categories to their country categories. But there is still many connections to add, which should be helped with such categories.

Obviously, other people have a similar need, as can be seen in Category:Peru in categories and category:Categories of Belgium.

It is clear that in the long run, we need software tools to help ensuring category consistency, but that might take a long time, and in the mean time, we have to carry on.

We should as well find a way to indicate where we are: if you have a name of a building somewhere, you need sometimes 5 or more clicks before you know in what country you are. That needs definitively improvement too, but that is for later. --Foroa (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were all the categories of "Categories of Belgium" added by a bot? If so, shouldn't this be a hidden category? I don't think we want to encourage people to put anything in this category manually. This sounds like a sorting category strictly for editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of categories like category:Categories of Belgium

Renaming of categories is relatively easy. I prefered to align myself to existing names and structures in stead of inventing yet another one. I have seen no real argument why category:Categories of Belgium is a bad name as it states perfectly what is inside it. I have seen no better name proposition neither.

All commons categories, except the end nodes, are basically meta cats, so we have to try to use category names that state what is really inside it. --Foroa (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If these categories would all start with the same prefix, it might be possible to move them to a new line in the list of categories, similar to what Magnus did with the "Tag:" categories (moved to the sidebar instead). Docu at 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those tags ? I think that a template tag in some critical categories, such a {{At|Belgium}} or {{At|Paris}} might give the possibility to trace back to a higher level cat. Have no time to give it some thoughts now. --Foroa (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sample at File:Vernomia altissima (Compositae) flower.JPG. See also the mailing list.

To view, you needed to activate "Tag: Magnus's image tagging system (In Testing)" in the "Categories" section of Special:Preferences. It doesn't seem to work with vector skin any more though. Docu at 20:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgium (flat list) is a better, clearer name to both native and non-native speakers of English. Combine it with {{Flatmetacat}} and {{Hiddencat}} and then it is very clear. Only editors see the category since it is hidden. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massive change in category structure

This could end up being a disaster. There is inevitable redundancy in categorization. As most people know who have done a lot of categorization. But this creates a huge level of redundancy, and will confuse editors.

We could end up with tens of thousands of "Categories of" metacats. That is true because almost every category name consists of multiple topics. Each topic has its own category tree. Are we going to create flat lists for all topic categories?

The only way I can see for allowing this is as a TEMPORARY HIDDEN category. My understanding is that nearly all the Belgium categories are already in topic trees, and so Category:Categories of Belgium serves what purpose for average readers?

Average readers can use search and the +/- subcategory buttons in Category:Belgium to find stuff.

If some editors find Category:Categories of Belgium helpful as a tool for better categorizing some categories, then it is fine to keep it as a hidden category. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiddencat now, good suggestion. --Foroa (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flat lists versus topic trees

I can see why Category:Categories of Belgium and Category:Categories of Italy should be hidden. They are basically meant to be alphabetical flat lists of all (or many) categories with Belgium or Italy in the category name. They are meant to help out registered editors.

So why is there only a basic alternative topic tree inside Category:Categories of Italy? It is not a large flat list of Italy subcategories. So I don't see what purpose Category:Categories of Italy is currently serving. See also: Category talk:Categories of Italy. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Maybe I wasn't clear here. See the next couple talk sections. I am not trying to eliminate the subcategories of Category:Categories of Italy. In fact, I like the subcategories. I only wanted to change their names, and put them under Category:Italy. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people knew what these categories were for, then they wouldn't need to be hidden:

Category:Flat list of Belgium categories

Category:Flat list of Italy categories --Timeshifter (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories of Belgium is no longer flat, it is flat for "items of Belgium", it has an additional level as in categories of Italy for "categories of Belgium by location" and "categories of Belgium by century". Why I removed the incorrect and misleading flat category cat. Categories of Italy is not flat at all. --Foroa (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now Category:Categories of Belgium is partially flat. This is the problem. "Categories of" is confusing. It is not defined. Flat-list categories and partially flat categories both go against the rules of Commons:Categories. So they should both be hidden categories until we get some clearer names for the categories, and some new rules added to Commons:Categories. In the meantime please write a clear introduction to Category:Categories of Belgium so people know what it is for. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Flatmetacat}} solves the problem. Now people can know what a flat list of categories is for. Another category name possibility: Category:Belgium (flat list). Whether a flat-list category should be hidden {{Hiddencat}} or not depends on its title clarity, and usefulness to some average readers. If only editors would appreciate the flat-list category, then it should probably be hidden.

Right now there is total confusion about whether "Categories of" is only for flat-list categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avert disaster. Special tag is needed for "Categories of ..."

This is already beginning to become a disaster. See:

See these diffs:

1. 2.

We do not want people creating "Categories of ..." as a normal thing. These "Categories of ..." flat lists should only be used by editors for special purposes. Those purposes need a specialized tag, not {{Metacat}}. The tag should clearly explain that this is a hidden category, and the purpose of it. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disaster is more the proliferation of all sorts of redundant/parallel categories "by name" and "by alphabet" and even "rivers of xx by river". There is indeed a need for a category management type as can be seen in Category:Categories of Italy; I hope you will not try to destroy that as in China. --Foroa (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by country by alphabet makes sense, and serves a purpose. Category:Categories of Italy does not serve any purpose as far as I can tell. All the 6 subcategories of Category:Categories of Italy could be subcategories of Category:Italy. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really confusing that you brought this up here. Provinces of China are not countries. Besides, you undid part of the categorization which may confuse those that try to figure out what type of disaster you tried to avert. Please just finish cleaning it up. Docu at 13:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought up here because Category:Countries by category (the initial topic in this deletion discussion) contains some "Categories of" categories. "Categories by" is another confusing variation. I reverted the recent major damage, and decided to discuss the rest here first before doing more. There is so much confusion. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories of Italy

Until recently we did without adding "Categories of" to category names.

Category:Italy by century Category:Italy by city Category:Italy by period Category:Italy by province Category:Italy by region Category:Italy by subject	Category:Categories of Italy by century Category:Categories of Italy by city Category:Categories of Italy by period Category:Categories of Italy by province Category:Categories of Italy by region Category:Categories of Italy by subject

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to polute all these categories with CFD's: talk with the single guy that created them: easier than to have to clean up everywhere afterwards. It is clear anyhow that Category:Categories of Italy by century and so on are maintenance categories. --Foroa (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A move tag is the correct way to request a name change. Please stop the admin abuse, Foroa. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) ~~It is spreading...~~

Search for "Categories of ...".

Search for "Categories in ..."

~~--Timeshifter (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually, it is not as bad as I thought. See:

intitle:"Categories of"

intitle:"Categories in"

--Timeshifter (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to the rename of the Category:Categories of Italy and of all the under categories "by". Excepting the geographic categories "by city, province, region", the other categories "by century, period, subject" are all under-categories of architecture or art categories. So I oppose to rename the Categories in the simple form: these categories are not "Category:Italy"", they are "Categories of the Category Italy". They are useful for management of architectural and art categories of Italy. --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Italy categories in the table mean the same thing with or without "Categories of". I don't understand (other than English fluency) why some editors want "Categories of" added to those Italy categories in the table. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DenghiùComm, I think that your structure of Category:Categories of Italy is a good idea, I needed something like that and you made a perfect prototype for me. It will help indeed to manage internal "xxx in Italy by xxx" categories, but I tackled first the categories that surround the Belgian ones. It is not the first time that we make a good team.

--Timeshifter I think that you need to reread carefully what we have written so far. You seem to be the only one that has a problem understanding what we mean and what we need. Can we somewere get an English translator for Belgian English ? --Foroa (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Foroa. I am against the proposal to rename the categories of Italy in the short form because if somebody tell me "Category:Italy by city" I understand "Cities of Italy"; and so "Italy by region" for me it means "Regions of Italy". I think that it's clear: the category of Italy is e.g. Category:Art in Italy; "Art in Italy by century / city / period / region / subject" are not Category:Italy, but categories of a Category of Italy, that is to say "Art in Italy". So simple! --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not standard English, though. But hey, feel free to use Belgian English or other non-native English. Native English speakers are used to being ignored on the Commons. Many of us have stopped communicating with Foroa, for example, most of the time for this reason. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who categorised uncategorised images of Italy by thousands, I can agree with DenghiùComm. Italy is a very diverse country. Much more than many of you can realise. It was divided into separate states until 1860. This is why the sub-category structures tend to become over-complicate very fast. Not only you have Italian art, you also have art of Lombardy (which is an Italian region), and art schools of Brescia and Bergamo can be different from the schools active in Milan (which are towns of the same Lombardy region). Therefore category get crowdy in a blink, and I understand the need of DenghiùComm for over-categories to further organise this marasma.

If the objection lies in the fact that the solution found is in poor English, then let's just find a linguistic compromise to accomodate everyone, rather than suppress the over-category.

Btw Timeshifter, english is not the language of WikiCommons. It is merely the language we agreed to use to communicate in it. There is no "English WikiCommons". Just Wikicommons. Therefore please do not behave as someone wanted to steal you something, ok? This is no Encyclopaedia Britannica. thx. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G.dallorto. English is the language of the Commons as concerns category names overall. At least until the MediaWiki software is improved enough to support category names according to some kind of cookie setting for language choice of registered and unregistered users. This is not a nationalistic statement, so please don't take offense.

I don't think you understand my English very well (also, no offense), and I may not have been clear enough, because I have stated that I am not trying to eliminate the categories. I am not trying to suppress the over-categories. I am only suggesting that "Categories of" be removed from these particular category names:

Category:Italy Category:Italy by century Category:Italy by city Category:Italy by period Category:Italy by province Category:Italy by region Category:Italy by subject	Category:Categories of Italy Category:Categories of Italy by century Category:Categories of Italy by city Category:Categories of Italy by period Category:Categories of Italy by province Category:Categories of Italy by region Category:Categories of Italy by subject

It means the same thing. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sure not. --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. See subcategories of Category:Maps.

Maps by cartographer
Maps by century made
Maps by continent
Maps by country
Maps by country subdivision
Maps by language
Maps by period
Maps by region
Maps by source
Maps by theme
Maps by type --Timeshifter (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sure not. I guess that you are the only one that does not understand the difference between for example Category:Categories of Italy by century (meta categories relating to by century meta categories pertaining to Italy) and Category:Italy by century which just classifies Italy per century. --Foroa (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:History of France:

Category:History of France by period

Category:History of France by century and so on...

You are trying to create a new set of categories:

Category:Categories of Belgium

Category:Categories of Italy

Most people oppose this, and the parent cat: Category:Countries by category --Timeshifter (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand how it is possible that somebody say that Italy is the same of categories of Italy. One thing is to organize Italy in categories, other thing is to organise the categories of Italy by something. Non c'è peggior sordo di chi non vuole udire (italian proverb). --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "Non c'è peggior sordo di chi non vuole udire" I suggest you learn from your own advice. Google translation: "There is so deaf as those who do not want to hear." --Timeshifter (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the meaning of "Most people oppose this" ? --Foroa (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the various replies in the talk section higher up: #Category:Countries by category. Most people oppose this new category system. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Denghiù and Foroa. There's a subtle but important difference between Category:Italy by xxx and Category:Categories of Italy by xxx. In the first one, you refer to the categories directly related to Italy (e.g. Category:Italy by province should include all and only the administrative subdivisions called provinces, Category:Italy by art all the artworks created in Italy, regardless where they actually come from, and so on...), the latter is more suitable to be considered a container of more specific categories (e.g. Category:Art of Sicily or Category:Doges of Venice). Moreover, as Foroa observed, Italy has been divided into several small states until 1861, so most of its history and culture can't be called generically "Italian". It's different from other nations, like England or France, that developed a national culture earlier in their history, as "national states", so not all non-Italian people may understand why we need to define different categories for each subject. Finally, you can't compare Italy with maps, you can't compare a complex historical, cultural and ethnical entity with a simple, plain, common used "object". While saying "Maps of XVIII century" makes sense, because there are a lot of maps created in 1700s, saying "Italy in XVIII century" is too generical, because Italy didn't even exist in that period. But you can say "Republic of Venice in XVIII century" or "Sicily in XIV century", both sentences make sense, and you may join the related categories in Category:Categories of Italy by period or similar for organization's sake. I hope I have explained myself well with my not-so-good English... Best regards. -- Vonvikken (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see these talk sections farther down the page:

#Categories of, and Categories in

#Categories: Categories

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variations of {{Category tree all}} might be a better solution. Unfortunately, with {{Category tree all}} set to specific depth= settings there is no way to start with it closed that I can see.

{{category tree all|Belgium|showcount=off|depth=*}}

Basically Category:Categories of Belgium acts like {{Category tree all}} set to open many sublevels at once (the depth= parameter). Category:Categories of Belgium also combines many subcategories into a single alphabetical flat list.

An on/off button for "alphabetical flat list of sublevels" inside {{Category tree all}} or {{Category tree}} would be nice.

Below are collapsed show/hide tables set to show various numbers of sublevels. See: en:Help:Collapsing.

class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

~~Category:Belgium does not go to a depth deeper than 2 sublevels of subcategories.~~

It would be nice if inside {{Category tree all}} it were possible to open various numbers of sublevels of subcategories by clicking a button for each depth= setting: depth=1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The template code followed by the table using it inside the table.

{{category tree all|Belgium|showcount=off|depth=1|header=CUSTOM TEXT}}

Belgium categories. 1 level of subcategories is initially displayed.

1 level of subcategories is initially displayed. Click on the "+/-" buttons to open and close:

{{category tree all|Belgium|showcount=off|depth=2|header=CUSTOM TEXT}}

Belgium categories. 2 levels of subcategories.

2 levels of subcategories are initially displayed. Click on the "+/-" buttons to open and close:

Belgium

Belgium by topic

Belgium by topic by year

Belgium by year by topic

360° panoramas in Belgium

Academic disciplines in Belgium

Activities in Belgium

Aerodromes in Belgium

Air transport in Belgium

Airbus aircraft in Belgium

Aircraft in Belgium

Aircraft of Belgium

Aircraft at airports in Belgium

Aircraft manufacturers of Belgium

Airfields in Belgium

Airports in Belgium

Animal care in Belgium

Antenna towers and masts in Belgium

Anthropology in Belgium

Applied sciences in Belgium

Archaeological sites in Belgium

Archaeology in Belgium

Architectural elements in Belgium

Architecture of Belgium

Art of Belgium

Artillery of Belgium

Astronauts from Belgium

Astronomical clocks in Belgium

Astronomy in Belgium

Automobiles in Belgium

Automobiles of Belgium

Botanical gardens in Belgium

Bunting in Belgium

Cafés in Belgium

Civil aircraft of Belgium

Civil engineering in Belgium

Clocks in Belgium

Computer science in Belgium

Computer scientists from Belgium

Concepts of Belgium

Construction in Belgium

Construction materials in Belgium

COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium

Culture of Belgium

Drinking establishments in Belgium

Earth sciences in Belgium

Eating establishments in Belgium

Ecology in Belgium

Education in Belgium

Election apportionment diagrams of Belgium

Electrical engineering in Belgium

Electronics in Belgium

Electronics manufacturers of Belgium

Energy in Belgium

Engineering in Belgium

Equipment of Belgium

Explorers from Belgium

Forestry in Belgium

General aviation aircraft of Belgium

Geodesy in Belgium

Geology of Belgium

Hackerspaces in Belgium

Helicopters of Belgium

Higher education institutions in Belgium

History of Belgium

History of geology in Belgium

Horticulture in Belgium

Hospitality buildings in Belgium

Hotels in Belgium

Hydraulic engineering in Belgium

Hydroelectric power plants in Belgium

Hydroelectricity in Belgium

Hydrology of Belgium

Hydropower in Belgium

Industry in Belgium

Information in Belgium

Infrastructure in Belgium

International relations of Belgium

Inventions from Belgium

Inventors from Belgium

Laboratories in Belgium

Learned societies of Belgium

License plates of Belgium

Life in Belgium

Lighting in Belgium

Machine manufacturers of Belgium

Machinery industry in Belgium

Manufactured objects in Belgium

Mass media in Belgium

Mathematicians from Belgium

Mathematics in Belgium

Medicine in Belgium

Military of Belgium

Military equipment of Belgium

Military radars of Belgium

Mining in Belgium

Motor vehicles in Belgium

Motor vehicles of Belgium

Natural sciences in Belgium

Natural scientists from Belgium

Nature of Belgium

Neuroscience in Belgium

Nuclear technology in Belgium

Objects in Belgium

Objects of Belgium

Observatories in Belgium

Open access (publishing) in Belgium

Organisms in Belgium

Organizations of Belgium

Paleontology in Belgium

Panoramas of Belgium

People in Belgium

People of Belgium

People sitting in Belgium

Physicians from Belgium

Physicists from Belgium

Pilatus aircraft in Belgium

Politics of Belgium

Popular science in Belgium

Products of Belgium

Projectile weapons of Belgium

Public aquariums in Belgium

QRpedia quick response codes in Belgium

Quick response codes in Belgium

Radar stations in Belgium

Radio receivers of Belgium

Rail transport in Belgium

Renewable energy in Belgium

Research institutes in Belgium

Research ships of Belgium

Restaurants in Belgium

Robotics in Belgium

Scholars from Belgium

Science in Belgium

Science buildings in Belgium

Science festivals in Belgium

Science museums in Belgium

Science parks in Belgium

Science writers from Belgium

Scientific disciplines in Belgium

Scientific journals of Belgium

Scientific organizations of Belgium

Scientists from Belgium

Society of Belgium

Solar energy in Belgium

Statistics of Belgium

Structures in Belgium

Sundials in Belgium

Surveying in Belgium

Techniques in Belgium

Technology in Belgium

Telecommunications in Belgium

Telephones in Belgium

Telephony in Belgium

Television of Belgium

Tools of Belgium

Tourism buildings in Belgium

Transport in Belgium

Unmanned aerial vehicles in Belgium

Unmanned aerial vehicles of Belgium

Urban planning in Belgium

Vehicles in Belgium

Vehicles of Belgium

Veterinary medicine in Belgium

Views of Belgium

Visual arts of Belgium

Waste collection in Belgium

Watermills in Belgium

Weapons of Belgium

Weather stations in Belgium

Works in Belgium

Yakovlev aircraft in Belgium

Gallery pages of Belgium

Gallery pages of cities in Belgium

Gallery pages about people of Belgium

Gallery pages of maps of Belgium

Gallery pages of museums and collections in Belgium

Gallery pages about transport in Belgium

Belgium by media type

Audio files of Belgium

Documents of Belgium

Images of Belgium

Information graphics of Belgium

Videos from Belgium

Activities in Belgium

Categories of Belgium by activity

Human activities in Belgium

Leisure activities in Belgium

Politics of Belgium

Urban exploration in Belgium

Waste collection in Belgium

Concepts of Belgium

Academic disciplines in Belgium

Economy of Belgium

Economy of Belgium by location

Economy of Belgium by municipality

Economy of Belgium by province

Economic statistics for Belgium

Advertising in Belgium

Agoria

Agricultural exhibitions in Belgium

Agriculture in Belgium

Arts and crafts of Belgium

Buses built in Belgium

Business in Belgium

Business schools in Belgium

Casinos in Belgium

Commerce in Belgium

Communication in Belgium

Companies of Belgium

Construction in Belgium

Crafts in Belgium

Dams in Belgium

Economy of Flanders

Employment agencies in Belgium

Energy in Belgium

Exclusive economic zone of Belgium

Fishing in Belgium

Forestry in Belgium

Fédération charbonnière de Belgique

Economic history of Belgium

Hunting in Belgium

Industry in Belgium

Infrastructure in Belgium

Public debt of Belgium

Receipts of Belgium

Recycling in Belgium

Services in Belgium

Shipbuilding in Belgium

Ships scrapped in Belgium

Social security in Belgium

Stock certificates from Belgium

Union économique belgo-luxembourgeoise

Voka, Flanders

Water management in Belgium

Work in Belgium

Geography of Belgium

Geography of Belgium by location

Geography of Belgium by municipality

Geography of Belgium by province

Geography of Belgium by region

Human geography in Belgium

Geographers from Belgium

Aerial photographs of Belgium

Altitude signs in Belgium

Bodies of water in Belgium

Collective municipalities in Belgium

Countryside in Belgium

Ecoregions of Belgium

Explorers from Belgium

Extreme points of Belgium

Geographical monuments in Belgium

Geography of Uccle

Geomorphology of Belgium

Geography of Herk-de-Stad

Institut Géographique National - Nationaal Geografisch Instituut

Landforms of Belgium

Landscapes of Belgium

Maps of Belgium

Military training grounds of Belgium

Plans-relief of Belgium

Political geography of Belgium

Satellite pictures of Belgium

Topography of Belgium

Toponymy of Belgium

Velhagen & Klasings Volksbücher Nr. 120, Erdkunde, Belgien

Weather and climate of Belgium

History of Belgium

History of Belgium by location

History of Belgium by municipality

History of Belgium by province

History of Belgium by region

Books about the history of Belgium

History of Belgium by century

History of Belgium by period

History of Belgium by subject

History of Belgium in art

Archaeology in Belgium

History of Belgium national association football team

Belgium and the Spanish Civil War

Bomb craters in Belgium

Burgundian Netherlands

Historical coats of arms of Belgium

Colonialism of Belgium

Countships of Belgium

Élysette

Events in Belgium

Family trees of Belgium

Historical flags of Belgium

Gallische Hoeve (Destelbergen)

History of Herk-de-Stad

Historical images of Belgium

Historical sites of Belgium

Historical societies in Belgium

House of Valois-Burgundy

Knights Templar in Belgium

History of Limbourg

Maps of the history of Belgium

Messager des sciences historiques, ou Archives des arts et de la bibliographie de Belgique

Historical people of Belgium

Postcards of Hainaut

Prince-Bishopric of Liège

Princely Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy

Rulers of Belgium

Belgium in the Russo-Ukrainian War

Sepia photographs of Belgium

Société Belge d'Études Coloniales

Straubing-Holland

War of the Cow

Information in Belgium

Visual arts of Belgium

Objects of Belgium

Objects of Belgium by quantity

Objects in Belgium

Archaeological objects of Belgium

Ceramics of Belgium

Decorative and applied arts of Belgium

Equipment of Belgium

Groups of objects in Belgium

no subcategories

Horologists from Belgium

Parts of a day in Belgium

Postmarks of Belgium

Schedules in Belgium

Sonntagsmarke

Categories of Belgium

Categories of Belgium by activity

Categories of Belgium by artist

Categories of Belgium by brand

Categories of Belgium by century

Categories of Belgium by city

Categories of Belgium by color

Categories of Belgium by date

Categories of Belgium by decade

Categories of Belgium by function

Categories of Belgium by gender

Categories of Belgium by industry

Categories of Belgium by language

Categories of Belgium by location

Categories of Belgium by material

Categories of Belgium by medium

Categories of Belgium by municipality

Categories of Belgium by museum

Categories of Belgium by name

Categories of Belgium by number

Categories of Belgium by occupation

Categories of Belgium by period

Categories of Belgium by province

Categories of Belgium by quantity

Categories of Belgium by region

Categories of Belgium by setting

Categories of Belgium by style

Categories of Belgium by subject

Categories of Belgium by topic

Categories of Belgium by type

Categories of Belgium by year

Category navigational templates for Belgium

Wayside crosses in Belgium

Ancient Greek categories in Belgium

Belgium in art

Belgium in World War II

Belgium on photochrome prints

Bell towers in Belgium

Bells in Belgium

Benedictine monasteries in Belgium

Beverages from Belgium

Bicycles in Belgium

Bikeways in Belgium

Bilateral maps of Belgium

Biologists from Belgium

Birds of Belgium

Bishops from Belgium

Bloggers from Belgium

Boats in Belgium

Book covers from Belgium

Bookshops in Belgium

Boundary stones in Belgium

Boxers from Belgium

Brass bands of Belgium

Breweries in Belgium

Bridges in Belgium

Bronze statues in Belgium

Buddhism in Belgium

Buildings in Belgium by condition

Buildings in Belgium by height

Bunkers in Belgium

Burial grounds in Belgium

Bus interiors in Belgium

Bus stations in Belgium

Bus stops in Belgium

Bus transport in Belgium

Buses built in Belgium

Buses in Belgium

Businesspeople from Belgium

Busts in Belgium

Cab signalling in Belgium

Cable-stayed bridges in Belgium

Calendars of Belgium

Campsites in Belgium

Canal locks in Belgium

Canals in Belgium

Cannons in Belgium

Capuchin churches in Belgium

Car parks in Belgium

Cardinals from Belgium

Carnivals of Belgium

Cartographers from Belgium

Cemeteries in Belgium

Chess players from Belgium

Choir stalls in Belgium

Choirs from Belgium

Choreographers from Belgium

Christianity in Belgium

Christmas markets in Belgium

Church elements in Belgium

Church furniture in Belgium

Church monuments in Belgium

Church portals in Belgium

Church windows in Belgium

Churches in Belgium

Churches in Belgium by patron saint

Churches of the Assumption in Belgium

Cinema of Belgium

Cinemas in Belgium

Cistercian monasteries in Belgium

City gates in Belgium

City walls in Belgium

Climate diagrams of Belgium

Climate diagrams W+L of Belgium

Clock towers in Belgium

Clubhouses in Belgium

Coal mines in Belgium

Coasts of Belgium

Coats of arms of archbishops of Belgium

Coats of arms of Belgium

Coats of arms of bishops of Belgium

Coats of arms of municipalities of Belgium

Cobblestones in Belgium

Coins of Belgium

Colonialism of Belgium

Columns in Belgium

Comedians from Belgium

Comic strips from Belgium

Commerce in Belgium

Communication in Belgium

Communities of Belgium

Companies of Belgium

Composers from Belgium

Concert halls in Belgium

Concerts in Belgium

Concrete beam bridges in Belgium

Conductors from Belgium

Confectionery of Belgium

Confluences in Belgium

Constitutions of Belgium

Construction sites in Belgium

Consulates of Belgium

Convention centers in Belgium

Convents in Belgium

Countryside in Belgium

Courthouses in Belgium

Cranes in Belgium

Creeks in Belgium

Criminals from Belgium

Cross-border bus lines between Belgium and France

Cross-border buses between Belgium and the Netherlands

Crosses in Belgium

Crypts in Belgium

Cuisine of Belgium

Cultural heritage monuments in Belgium

Custom houses in Belgium

Customs services of Belgium

Cycling infrastructure in Belgium

Cycling route signs in Belgium

Cyclists from Belgium

Dams in Belgium

Dancers from Belgium

Dark rides in Belgium

Death customs of Belgium

Defensive walls in Belgium

Demonstrations and protests in Belgium

Designers from Belgium

Destroyed churches in Belgium

Deutz Diesel locomotives of Belgium

Diagrams of road signs of Belgium

Diagrams of route signs of Belgium

Diesel locomotives of Belgium

Diesel multiple units, motor coaches and railcars of Belgium

Dikes in Belgium

Distilleries in Belgium

Docks in Belgium

Dolmens in Belgium

Dolphinariums in Belgium

Domestic workers in Belgium

Doors in Belgium

Dormer windows in Belgium

Dovecotes in Belgium

Draisines of Belgium

Drama schools in Belgium

Draughtsmen from Belgium

Drawbridges in Belgium

Dredge ships of Belgium

Drummers from Belgium

Dunes of Belgium

Earth scientists from Belgium

Economists from Belgium

Economy of Belgium

Editors from Belgium

Educationists from Belgium

Egyptologists from Belgium

Election posters in Belgium

Elections in Belgium

Electric locomotives of Belgium

Electric multiple units of Belgium

Elevators in Belgium

Embankments in Belgium

Copyright rules of Belgium

Belgian law deletion requests

Freedom of panorama in Belgium

License tags of Belgium

WikiProject Belgium

Files of Belgium with bad file names

Belgian slide scan april 1982

Belgian slide scan march 1982

Wiki Loves Monuments Belgium 2019 needing check

Templates related to Belgium

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support but isn't it limited to 200 ? Test with about 400 municipalities of a French department :

Cities and villages in Charente categories. 1 level of subcategories is initially displayed.

1 level of subcategories is initially displayed. Click on the "+/-" buttons to open and close:

Cities and villages in Charente

no subcategories

Jack ma (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you catched the "raison d'être" of those categories. For Belgium and Peru, the basic need is to have a selective list, amongst the tens of thousands of categories in Belgium (and more than 2 levels), from all categories that connect to the outside "by country" categories in order to improve their integration and cross connection in Belgian categories. As stated before, nearly every day, someone drops another "xxx in Belgium" category, put a few images in it and disappear. An example was Category:Roman Catholic churches in Belgium which I redirected because 99 % of churches in Belgium are Roman Catholic, but the Category:Roman Catholic churches in France might hang there for months or years till someone connects it with the churches in France (or redirects it). So each time a new by country category is created, I would like to be able to verify if it makes sense and connect it properly to the inside categories.

The need in Italy seems different: they seem to want to make an overview of the categories that are used in Italy by function, by city, by province, ... which is a legitime need as thos things are growing wild.

So category tree is no solution at all (and produces no flatlist neither), you are better off with catscan. --Foroa (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are totally right; the aim is to have an alphabetical list (flat list) of all categories under some category (not only a country; it can be any category). Jack ma (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foroa. Category:Belgium does not contain more than 2 sublevels as far as I can tell. If I am wrong, then please link to subcategories at the 3rd sublevel of Category:Belgium.

It is true that we like big fat and flat systems. You have to try harder: count your steps via people of Belgium, artists to a Baroque painter from Belgium. Or try to get via subdivisions of Belgium to ;Category:Stasegem. --Foroa (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To display all subcategories click on the "▶":

People of Belgium‎ (50 C, 46 F)

OK. I see what you mean. It seems that {{Category tree all}} has limits on how many subcategories it will show open at once. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was used to create Category:Categories of Belgium? You mentioned meta:CatScan. I assume you used some kind of search tool to find any category with "Belgium" in the title. How did you rapidly categorize them in Category:Categories of Belgium? There are around a thousand categories in that flat list.

A lot of preparation, work, concentration and still 100 to 200 to go. Strange that we have around 20 basic categories, only two levels, roughly 5 % (1000 to 1150) of the categories are in "categories of Belgium": there must be something terribly wrong with my mathematics. --Foroa (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do you tell which categories listed in Category:Categories of Belgium are not already in the topic tree of Category:Belgium? I assume that was one of your goals. How can other editors tell which ones are not in the topic tree of Category:Belgium? If editors knew this, then editors could then add those categories to the topic tree of Category:Belgium.

"Categories of Belgium" contain the "topics of Belgium" that are connected with the external world, the majority via "topic by country" categories. --Foroa (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would make Category:Categories of Belgium a more useful tool, other than just a flat list. A flat list can be justified too, though I think a special banner/tag and a clear name (such as Category:Flat list of Belgium categories) need to be used to avoid the confusion seen here . --Timeshifter (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read through Commons:Categories. It provides an introduction to categories at Commons. Docu at 19:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have over 13,000 edits on the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And my father is a boxer, my mother knows karate and can cook by only using a remote control, my sister can have sex over a modem and my dogs reads fingerprints before biting. My main problem is that I am limited to two levels, which makes my life much more simple. --Foroa (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~As far as I can tell, Foroa, you have not answered a single question that I asked in my last long comment in this talk subsection.~~ I have to assume good faith on your part, because you obviously spent some time trying to answer my last long comment, but we are just not communicating. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I figured out one of your answers to that particular long comment of mine, Foroa. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Commons:Categories#Tools, I tried to list various tools available for categories. Most notably CatScan2 which allows to select subcategories of one tree while ignoring those of others. Docu at 07:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I strongly prefer the use of a CatScan tool, even if it needs some adaptation to give a strictly alphabetical flat list, rather than manually add the proper category to each of the 900 subcategories under Belgium. Jack ma (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. With the discussion on rivers of France, I requested a simple extension to Catscan, but never got any reaction. In the mean time, some people added rivers to rivers of France, others to rivers of xxx departement, but I have never seen one that added all needed categories. That is another reason why I started this category: to demonstrate a need for tools that allow for category coherency checking. --Foroa (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's for sure, but I'm not convinced that simply listing parent categories is sufficient. You'd probably still have to review each category in the result. Unless MediaWiki could derive it from some other element, I think you'd still have to define a type for each category. Doing that is probably equivalent to add another category. Docu at 07:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With catscan, you can have a complete list of all "rivers in France" related cats (3 or 4 levels deep), alphabetically sorted (and without doubles). If this list could be presented, as with the images, with the parent cats on one side, the contained subcats on the other side, then you can check manually, indeed, the whole structure but without further clicking. Rivers that are only categorised in one category would be seen immediatly. This feauture will be even harder needed with the exponential growth of metacats. --Foroa (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long time since development on CatScan has been discontinued. CatScan2 is a new development, but it doesn't list parent categories at all. You can use negative categories in CatScan2 to do similar checks, try, e.g., the maintenance links in Category:Airlines by name. Docu at 08:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See {{FlatMetaCat}} and "What links here":

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FlatMetaCat

This category gathers all sub-categories related to its parent category in a non-hierarchical list, including those that would normally only be found via intermediate sub-categories.

--Timeshifter (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good name for the banner, but it's just a banner... Jack ma (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combine the banner with the category name:

Category:Flat list of Belgium categories

Category:Flat list of Italy categories

{{FlatMetaCat}} also adds the {{MetaCat}} warning box. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other possibilities for category names:

Category:Belgium (flat list) versus Category:Categories of Belgium

Category:Italy (flat list)

This may work easily for many editors since it uses the same category names.

{{Hidden cat}} can be put on them too. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing Foroa deleted Category:Belgium (flat list) just after you created it. It would have been a disaster to have both this and Category:Categories of Belgium.

Besides, it gets confusing if we get yet another section with naming suggestions. Docu at 13:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foroa sometimes tends to get stuck on one way of doing things, and then uses his admin powers to get his way. He could have left the category up for a few days. Category:Categories of Belgium and Category:Belgium (flat list) are both hidden categories. So the only people seeing it are editors, and hardly anyone is adding subcategories other than Foroa at the present moment to the flat list. Patience is better than power. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2010 (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.

Categories by state of the United States

I oppose changing "Categories by state of the United States" to "United States by state" because that would cause confusion with "States of the United States". I think the current name is fitting. It should include the word "categories" to highlight the fact that it's a meta-meta category (that is, a category designed to contain all "by state of the United States" categories). This probably applies to other similarly named categories being discussed here but I didn't look to see if the others made sense or not. Rocket000 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:United States by state by theme? This has the advantage that themes can have subcategories too. See: Category:Maps by theme and its multi-level subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that might work. Rocket000 (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, no consensus, no active discussion for months. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All

What about using the word "all" in these so-called flat categories. Such as "Category:All Belgium categories" or "All categories of Belgium"? This is a little clearer than calling a category a "flat list". I actually was thinking about this before when we were discussing "by name/alphabet" categories. The goal of those is to have a flattened category along side the normal tree. It's kinda confusing, so I thought maybe we should have call them (for example) "Category:All categories by country" instead of "Categories by country by alphabet/name". Rocket000 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Category:Categories by century (ignore how disorganized it is, but it should be a hierarchy) vs Category:All categories by century (not complete yet, but it aims to be a complete flatten list). Rocket000 (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by century is not a flat list of "by century" categories.

For example; Category:Art by century is a subcategory of Category:Categories by century, and has deeper subcategories with "by century" in the category titles.

I see that there are very few truly flat categories. The flattest categories seem to be maintenance categories such as Category:Categories of Belgium. Those can be hidden. Category:All categories of Belgium might be helpful in this case, along with a clear explanation in the introduction of the category. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my comment. Category:Categories by century is hierarchical and Category:All categories by century is the flat list. Rocket000 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now that you explained "all" to me. But the average reader does not connect "flat list" to "all." --Timeshifter (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By xxx

The following "by xxx" category names are confusing to many readers. Some rules, consolidation, and some kind of introductory explanation templates seem necessary. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It gets confusing especially at the top. Rocket000 (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By category

Or should this be Category:Categories by country?

Search results for intitle:"by category"

Are the results all flat-list categories? How are these categories different from the category without "by category" in the category name? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the flatten list is Categories by country by alphabet. Rocket000 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By alphabet

Category:Categories by name

Search results for intitle:"by alphabet"

Are the results all flat-list categories? How are these categories different from the category without "by alphabet" in the category name?

By name

Category:Categories by alphabet

Search results for intitle:"by name"

Are the results all flat-list categories? How are these categories different from the category without "by name" in the category name? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"By name" and "by alphabet" are the same (except for a few exceptions). We have both because no one has yet renamed them one way or another. It looks like "by name" is what the majority should be. Anyway, per my "all categories" proposal above, we would eliminate both of these. (The exceptions would be things like Category:Inscriptions by alphabet.) "By name" and "by alphabet" categories are supposed to be flattened categories, but the names aren't clear enough. For example, you get people that do things like this not knowing it's not supposed to be a hierarchical tree. That's another reason why "All categories by xxx" is a better name. Rocket000 (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at Category:Categories by name and I don't see how "All categories by xxx" is better in most cases. For example;

Category:Free software by name

versus

Category:All categories in/of Free software

Also, Category:Free software by name is not a total flat list. There are many deeper subcategories in it.

I think one problem with "by name" categories is the lack of an introductory explanation template for "by name" categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not "All categories in Free software" but "All categories of Free software". It includes all categories with "of Free software" in the title. Can you think of a better name? I said "by name" categories are supposed to be a flat list, not all of them are. This is one of the main reasons for the change, to stop people from subdividing. Rocket000 (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free software by name is for a different purpose than Category:All categories of free software or Category:Free software (all). Category:Free software by name is not meant to be totally flat. It is meant to list all the main free software names. Compare to Category:Free software. It sorts into types and genres.

To the average reader Category:Free software means the same thing as Category:All categories of free software or Category:Free software (all). Because any category contains all its subcategories. The word "all" does not normally indicate the type of display (hierarchical or flat or some other way). --Timeshifter (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said "by name" categories are supposed to be flat, but most aren't because people started sub-categorizing, thus the problem. I'm not suggesting we create categories like Category:All categories of free software. Category:Free software is not a "by xxx" category. My "all categories" would only be created for grouping all meta cats that have "by xxx" in their titles. I have no intention of doing this for topics, like free software or Belgium or anything else. Rocket000 (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "by name" can mean many things to many people. I disagree that "by name" categories are supposed to be totally flat, partially flat, metacat flat, or anything. They can be whatever they are defined to be in their introduction.

Can you give me a specific example of a Free software category name using your method. I am not at all clear what you mean. An example would help. Maybe you already gave an example of such a Free software category with all in the title, and I missed it. Please define exactly what would be in the category, and in what display method. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"By name" can mean many things to many people. This is why it's not a good system. I can't give you an example using Category:Free software because it isn't a set of meta categories. I wouldn't make any kind of "all categories" category involving free software. I think my example with Category:Categories by century/Category:All categories by century demonstrates what I'm talking about. This new system is not about topical categories (like free software) but about grouping together all "by criterion" categories. I can create another example if you want. Something like "All categories by genre" or "All categories by occupation". Rocket000 (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by century is fine with me but hardly populated. No idea what Category:All categories by century serves for, in the end it will contain thousands of categories serving no purpose and creating a serious maintenance problems. The list can be easily obtained by Catscan.

Category:Categories by country by alphabet should be Category:Categories by country , the majority of Category:Categories of Belgium is a subset of this, mainly because we have currently no adequate tools to extract that properly. --Foroa (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All categories by century currently contains all categories with "by century" in the title (so no thousands, but that would be ok too). I did a database scan. Maintenance is done in the same way all other metacat maintenance is done. Categorization is done by {{Metacat}} and updating current uses is an easy job for bots so that's not an issue. It's a tracking/maintenance category ("a list for the sake of a list") not one to browse files by. Likewise, I have no idea what Category:Categories by country by alphabet serves but for some reason people want these categories. If things have changed in the last couple months and "by name"/"by alphabet" categories aren't wanted anymore, I'll gladly give up this whole "all categories" thing and help turn them into something more useful. Rocket000 (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, as with {{By country category}} that puts all root "by country" categories in one single category Category:Categories by country by alphabet, we need similar ones for {{By century category}} that puts all root by century categories in one single category Category:Categories by century. That way we can ensure a coherent system and the proper metacat (and related text display as you started). Simularly probably for the most used forms of "category by xxx". As stated before, I have no idea what Category:All categories by century serves for which should be the second level (say 50 to 100 times bigger) of Category:Categories by century. --Foroa (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why create templates for every "by xxx" when one template ({{metacat}}) can do it all? {{metacat|century}} is the same as {{By century category}}. Category:All categories by century is the same as Category:Categories by century by name. I'm try to consolidate templates and use (what I hoped to be) a clearer name for the category. Rocket000 (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A misunderstanding from both sides I guess. {{MetaCat}} connects to a maintenance "categories of ..." category and displays a banner. {{By country category|Parent}} does the same + connects to the parent of the "xxx by country" category. If you want to generalise, then you have to create a template such as {{Category by|Criterion|Parent category}} to avoid confusion with the current templates. The names of the "categories of .." are not really that important as they can be changed by changing the template. --Foroa (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know Category:Categories of Belgium isn't really a flat category. You are sub-categorizing, e.g. Category:Categories of Belgium by location and Category:Categories of Belgium by century. I understand what you're doing, but it is different than what I mean when I say "flat". I take that to mean no subcategorizing whatsoever. Category:Categories of Belgium by criterion (a normal hierarchical category) would be the appropriate name for grouping together all Belgium-related categories that are grouped by criteria (like countries or centuries). Rocket000 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories of Belgium is only flat in the sense that "churches in Belgium", that are a subcat of "buildings of Belgium" appear in the list at the same basic level. Apart from the couple of by criterion categories (that we could throw easily in another cat), the cat contains (a flat list) of "external (world level) interface categories of Belgium", which is completely different from criterion. Anyway, we have several topics and trees inside the Belgium tree that don't appear in that cat. I fail to understand why you want to replace absolutely a general name that is good and clear enough (without interfering with other cat names) by a more specialised name that only adds confusion. --Foroa (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current naming conventions are broken and inconsistent (some "by name" categories are flat and some aren't). Look at all the trouble/confusion they have caused. People were even trying to subcategorize Category:People by name by surnames... This will keep happening. Categories like Category:Lighthouses by name will continue to be subcategorized by country or something else until they become redundant with the normal category tree. So much for "flat". How can you say this is "good and clear enough"? I decided to take Timeshifter's suggestion of "Categories by xxx (flat list)" (and possibly "Categories of xxx (flat list)" or "xxx categories (flat list)" for topical groupings). Apparently "All categories" isn't as clear as I thought. Rocket000 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that: that was precisely the basic reason why I always contested the category name in the "topic by name" or "topic by aphabet" discussions. For the maintenance categories, one should first decide precisely what will go inside before discussing the names. --Foroa (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Another idea for hidden maintenance categories is something like Category:Belgium (maintenance sorting). The category will only be seen by registered users who will immediately see that this is not a regular category. The title alone is clear enough for most people, and a clear introductory explanation of the purpose of the category helps more. My comments at User talk:Foroa#New "all categories" system may help clarify things more. Some possible category names:

Category:Belgium - standard topic tree.
Category:Belgium by name - more main topics in the flat list at the top.
Category:Belgium (flat sorting) - all subcategories to top. Insanely flat.
Category:Belgium (partially flat sorting) - Defined in introduction.
Category:Belgium (maintenance sorting) - Defined in introduction. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afterword Category:people by name. I am joining in this discussion a bit late, but Jarekt used in juin the Category:People by name to make (a) a search abaut defaultsort lacking (5000 hits); and (b) make a crosslist list of people by name lacking birth year category (1500 hits for the Netherlands, see User:Havang(nl)/list 2 in progress). --Havang(nl) (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of, and Categories in

I just noticed while looking at the results of these two intitle phrase searches that nearly all of the results would work fine as "by theme" categories:

Even Category:Categories of Belgium could be Category:Belgium by theme unless it were meant to be a flat list.

I think the fewer uses of Category:Categories the better. I think it should only be used at the very top levels:

To display all subcategories click on the "▶":

Categories‎ (66 C)

--Timeshifter (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what we should call these topical ("by theme") categories, but I think I'm gonna go ahead with naming the categories that contain a truly flat list of "by xxx" categories to "Categories by xxx (flat list)". If and when we come up with something for things like Category:Categories of Belgium (which "(flat list)" isn't completely accurate for), I'll add it to {{Metacat}} so when can autocategorize them too. Rocket000 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Categories by country by alphabet could be changed to:

Category:Categories by country (flat list).

It is a necessary and useful flat list because {{CatAZ}} in the intro is an easy way (and maybe the only quick way) for the average reader to find a specific "by country" category.

I am not sure something has to be a perfectly flat list. That could be specified in the intro. As in this example:

This category is for category maintenance and contains a flat list of all "xxx in/of/from Belgium" categories and in a second level, all "xxx in/of/from Belgium by location/century/..." categories.

That is from the Category:Belgium flat list. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess if it's specified on the category page then it might be ok. Category:Categories by country by alphabet is exactly what I had in mind, I'm just saving those big ones for later. I see you recently unhid that one. Do you think Category:Categories by century (flat list) should be hidden? Unlike Category:Categories of Belgium which could be used for browsing, this is almost an exclusively a maintenance cat to me. Category:Categories by century should be enough for browsing purposes (of course, it needs someone to work on it). BTW, I just found Category:Ships by name by alphabet (!) Rocket000 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to see the utility of flat list categories to average readers if {{CatAZ}} is in the intro. Also, someone wrote that many "by country" and "by century" categories are created without correctly putting them in the topic trees of Category:Categories by country and Category:Categories by century. So I now think that Category:Categories by century (flat list) and Category:Categories by country by alphabet should not be hidden. We can also add a search link for intitle:"by country", suggesting readers add additional search terms. Also, intitle:"by century".

This user supports global, cross-wiki, integrated watchlists.

These flat list categories with hundreds or thousands of categories may also show both editors and readers the need for better, hierarchal categorization. More average readers may become editors when they see the need. What we really need are more Wikipedia editors helping out via integrated, global watchlists. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All maintenance related cats can be hidden as far as I am concerned. I am under the impression that this has been undersnowed --Foroa (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did miss the first part of that. Thanks. I'm slowly implementing my vision for {{metacat}}. I'll be working on it more in the next couple days (including a bot script) and it will start becoming clearer how it will all work. In the future it may work like this: populating a new category for flat categories (based on either "by criteria" or topics—multiple topics) will be as easy as creating the page for that category. Depopulating it will happen automatically when it's deleted. I'm not sure if I'll do this for "by criteria" as I would like to control it via template in order to easily combine multiple forms into one category (such as "by year", "by year of foundation", "by year of completion", etc.), maybe this would be better for topics too. Still experimenting. Rocket000 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps by and Italy by

The initial starting point of this whole thread was this:

Category:Countries by category

One of its subcategories was: Category:Categories of Italy

There is no essential difference between the names of these Italy categories and the map categories that follow them:

Italy:

Italy by century
Italy by city
Italy by period
Italy by province
Italy by region
Italy by subject

Category:Maps

Maps by cartographer
Maps by century made
Maps by continent
Maps by country
Maps by country subdivision
Maps by language
Maps by period
Maps by region
Maps by source
Maps by theme
Maps by type --Timeshifter (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: Categories

To display all subcategories click on the "▶":

Categories‎ (66 C)

I now think there is no need ever to put the word "Categories" twice in a row. Ever, ever, ever. Even at the highest levels.

See:

Category:Maps by continent

At the bottom are listed these categories:

"Categories: Categories by continent | Maps | Maps by region | Geography by continent"

It should be

"Categories: By continent | Maps | Maps by region | Geography by continent"

Banning the use of "Categories" being used twice in a row solves so many problems with speakers of 300+ languages on Wikipedia and their interpretations of English. A simple rule against it would avoid all these problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also have "Maps" twice in a row. "Categories" should be in the title when they are the subject. They are a category of categories, so there's nothing wrong with using the word twice. I think you're thinking about it on the wrong level. We are not talking about the category itself or it's members, we are talking what the members contain (which happens to be categories as well). This is how we name all categories. For example, a category that contains things (media, galleries, subcats) related to Canada, is called Canada, not "Categories of Canada". A (meta)category containing only categories of Canada, is called something like "Canada by xxx" (like Canada by year), not "Categories of Canada by year". However, a (meta-meta)category containing (meta)categories containing things related to Canada, should be have "category" in the title. That is the subject and we always name things after the subject. What would you call Category:Categories if we banned the use of the word? The thing that might be confusing you, ironically, is the fact that we leave out the actual literal subject in category names (with the exception of maintenance categories and special cases where it's unavoidable like Photographs of Canada). Otherwise, instead of Canada, it would be "Content related to Canada". It's the old ceci n'est pas une pipe argument. I think you think we are calling the painting of a pipe a painting instead of a pipe, but in fact, we are calling a painting of a painting of a pipe "a painting of a pipe" (or, in this case, a "categories of a subject"). Just like with every other name, we drop the first level of description. In the same way that "Content related to Canada" becomes simply "Canada", "Categories of categories by continent" becomes simply Categories by continent. I hope this makes sense. (I tried not to get to meta/literal/self-referential, like saying the contents of Photographs of Canada aren't really photographs but files digitally representing a photograph, or bringing up the hypothetical dilemma of naming a category containing categories containing categories about the subject of categories.) Rocket000 (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the end all category naming relies on shortcuts. We could go into Buddhism and start describing neural pathways, objects, reality, perceptions of reality, how much acid and pot you and I have done. That might be interesting actually. :)

But back to the boring job of categorizing. I first agreed with you, but now I believe that the Commons should use the simplest methods or we will have perpetual problems due to the worldwide user base.

There are many categories that are meta-categories of meta-categories of meta-categories of meta-categories. Almost all categories can contain categories. Almost anything can be subdivided further. That means this bad habit of using "Categories:Categories" could keep going deeper and deeper down the category tree. Really bad idea.

If we could keep "Categories:Categories" only at the top few levels then it is less of a problem. But Foroa, DenghiùComm and other non-native English speakers may continue generalizing (with some justification) about English usage. But English usage can not be generalized. It is not always a logical language. Frequently so.

English Wikipedia limits usage of Categories:Categories to some top levels. The very top level is

en:Category:Contents --Timeshifter (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should only be used at the top levels. Rocket000 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by .... is very usefull as intermediate category in maintainance. I 'll give an exemple. Category:Cantons of France. If I use hotcat, I see no Category:Cantons of France by department and I put the canton to classify in Category:Cantons of France, level too high. If there is a Category:Cantons of France by department I continue searching the department category, exemple Category:Cantons of Pyrénées-Atlantiques and so the item goes straight in the right category. AND inversely: If I have to complete the series of categories by department, I just go to Category:Categories of France by department. Don't suppress handsome maintainance categories. There is a real and usefull distinction between Category:France by department and Category:Categories of France by department. There is a good argument to use in wikipedias the Category:category... type only in top level cats; but there is level difference between wikipedia and commons: wikipedia articles level with commons categories; so in commons, category;categories,... are usefull also at subtop or intermediate levels. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: en:Category:Geography of France and how it is done there. See also:

More countries:

en:Category:Geography of Italy and its subcategories.
en:Category:Geography of the United States --Timeshifter (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WE have those categories also at commons; but if I should ''only follow that wikipedia category tree, it should be chaos at commons. Are you customed to categorising at commons? Then I could invite you to do some work at Category:Media needing categories. You soon will find out how usefull composite cats are which pop up at hotcat or at uploading. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have around 14,000 edits on the Commons, and much experience categorizing geographic and map categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice contribution

. You then appreciate problably the template {{Departments of France}} as much as I do in those categories-containing-only-categories. Combined with the pop-ups I mentioned, it's an easy-working system for finding and creating categories and for seeing ill-categorised items. I like that intermediate category-level Category:Categories of France by department. However, one could restrict them to be only intermediate (meta-)categories within the (in this case) France cattree; and those categories need not get into a Category:category..-tree on its own. I really hope that the intermediate Category:categories... will be kept as maintainance cats; but I don't oppose if one breaks down the cattree Category:categories.... --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of these might work: Category:France by department by theme

Category:Department of France by theme --Timeshifter (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it is clear that the majority here understand the usefulness of such "categories in ..." and the fact that they correspond to a need, so I think that we can conclude on that. --Foroa (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most native English speakers oppose it. The only exceptions should be at the highest categories. "I agree it should only be used at the top levels." (Rocket000 comment). See #Category:Countries by category for more opposition to that category and its subcategories such as

Categories of Belgium

Categories of Italy --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing that Category:Categories of the United States by state is up for deletion based on this(?) policy in favour of renaming to Category:United States by state. That policy seems like a nomination of removing the noun from the statement. Categories by State I think would be more descriptive of what you'll find within. CaribDigita (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what it should be named. Foroa recently changed the name again. I think there should be discussion first before adding more variations of "Categories of/in/by" names.

This might work: Category:States of the United States by theme --Timeshifter (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories of Belgium by location

Why isn't this Category:Belgium by location instead of Category:Categories of Belgium by location?

This makes no sense. It is a recently created category. "Categories of" provides no info.

It is a subcategory of Category:Categories of Belgium which also does not make sense except as a flat list. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly for the same reason as in #Category:Categories_of_Italy where you are the only opposer. Please stop spreading the same discussion over all sections. --Foroa (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You previously discussed Category:Categories of Belgium (a category you created) since it is a subcategory of the main topic of this deletion request: Category:Countries by category.

You also created Category:Categories of Belgium by location. This must stop. You can't create a new intermediate category naming method without agreement from most of the admins.

Most people disagree with you. See the comments of many people who disagree with you: #Category:Countries by category. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose that no more intermediate categories that start with "Categories of/in/by" be created until there is some discussion and agreement by more people, especially more admins.

Most of these intermediate categories can be more clearly named.

Upper-level categories can continue to use "Categories of/in/by". See:

Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION

Rocket000 has been converting some of these upper-level categories to better names. Search for "flat list" in category titles. For example:

People will ignore poorly named categories. So I don't intend to spend much more time discussing this. Longer discussion by others will come to various solutions over time. Most of the intermediate categories could be named with "by theme" or "by topic" or "by subject".

Here are some examples:

The above examples are better names than the existing names that start with "Categories of" or "Categories by". See:

Pages that link to "Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Countries by category".

There are other descriptive, helpful category names that are useful and clear for intermediate category names. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as there is Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion for maintainance, I want Category:Categories of France by department for maintainance. In addition I search for categories here and these pop up as categories, whereas Category:Regions of ... pops up as regions. For me these practical arguments have great weight. And what is important too, the meta-categories Category:category... have easy-cleaning properties: I hardy see uinappropriate items going in there. I love those, but not all of them, some seen inappropriate to me. If we focus the discussion on which Category:Categories...' are appropriate and which not? --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want something like the 8 or so special maintenance categories in Category:Categories of Italy for France, right ? --Foroa (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Havang(nl). For readers:

Category:Departments of France by theme

For editor maintenance:

Category:Departments of France (flat list)

or

Category:Departments of France by theme (flat list)

--Timeshifter (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "by theme" or "by topic" or "by subject" are better name for categories. Geagea (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent). The basic naming convention of Commons (and the strenght of it) is that a category is named Topic [in/of/from Qualifier] [[by Qualifier]. Since the discussed maintenance categories all concern categories, all category names have to start with "categories in/of ...". It makes no sense to discuss about names that do not comply with that basic rule. In the en:wikipedia, we see a significant number of such categories, even if they have only half of the number of categories we have at Commons. --Foroa (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See: Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION.

Topic:

Category:Departments of France

Qualifier:

by theme

"Category:Categories" is neither a topic, nor a qualifier. It provides no info. Almost all categories have subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each one has its preferences; let's use redirects without renamings. Bots will do the rest. Havang(nl) (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Category:categories... has an exemple in Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION -->see examples in Category:Categories by year. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

200 categories without topic. Lets be serious. --Foroa (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, Category:categories should only be used in top categories. Even there it is not necessary. Category:By year or Category:By year (flat list) have similar meanings, and are more clear than, Category:categories by year. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for France), unless there is Category:Departments of France by theme instead of the existing Category:Categories of France by department for homogeneity reason. These two categories are employed everywhere in France (e.g. Category:Naves in France by region and Category:Naves in France by department), and one of those two categories should not be proposed to be renamed without the other one. Jack ma (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories of France by department Should contain 7000+ items. Might be a good idea to autogenerate it in the template {{Departments of France}}. --Foroa (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And 1600 missing here.

I agree for your proposal; it's just a line Category to add to this model. Same for {{Regions of France}}. But it's just a detail in our subject, and may clash with already 7000 existing ones where this line has been added manually and should then be deleted, won't it ? Jack ma (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This double category declaration would not harm and could be removed by bots. Most important is that such categories are consistent. --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's actually being used

I don't like reading the name "Categories" twice at the bottom of a file or category. It tells me nothing. "By theme" is standard, is clearer, and tells me something. As is "By subject", and "By topic".

What is being used in category names:

By theme

By subject

By topic

See: Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION.

See: Commons:List of meta category criteria - "theme" is listed.

I hope most people do not use "categories" in titles any more. It is not even necessary at the highest levels. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's going on here, there seem to be a lot of separate discussions mixed up under "Countries by category". However since that category has been deleted, and the rest is a mess, I assume this discussion can be closed. ghouston (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mm Telescopes

Name is "Mm Telescopes" confusing. It is suppused to mean "Millimeter Telescopes", implying that it is a radio telescope. Hoewever, it was wrongly categorised as "Telescopes". I moved its content to a new category, "Category:Millimeter Telescopes". "Category:Mm Telescopes" is now empty and should be deleted. HHahn (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note added: I removed the square brackets from the links in the above deletion request, as I did not manage to let tje link texts become visible. HHahn (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Greenland landscapes

Poorly named, as suggested by Algkalv --Waldir ^talk 08:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is poorly named, is there is better named category? Or is there no need at all for a category with landscapes of Greenland? --rimshot^talk 06:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that there's no need for such a category. "Landscapes" is a very generic name. IMO it would be better to categorize the images by the actual content they depict (mountains, glaciers, etc) --Waldir ^talk 08:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --rimshot^talk 20:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Proposal for a new category

I have uploaded File:Merksem baksteen 1.jpg, File:Merksem baksteen 2.jpg, File:Merksem baksteen 3.jpg showing special brickwork. I put it in the Category:Facades in Belgium, but I am not satisfied. You could consider it architecture element, but ... I know a lot of other special brickwork, and once people start looking for it, there are many examples. The use of tiles is also a type brickwork. (In portugal they have many examples of this) And brickwork is not always on facades. And what about mozaiks? Or is this artwork. I propose a separate category: "brickwork and tile use" as a subcategory of Facades. (Paintwork and other non-permanent features are excluded) Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wil start a cat: Decorative use of bricks and tiles under the general category: architecture. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, no actity in a while, looks resolved. --rimshot^talk 20:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Animals facing left

This and the next below (Category:Animals facing right) have both just been created in the last 2 or 3 days. They don't serve any useful purpose; also, if kept, each would ultimately contain close on a half of all the animal photos on commons. I propose deletion of both. - MPF (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete these both categories, you also should delete: Category:Facing left, Category:Facing right, Category:People facing left, Category:People facing right, Category:Men facing left, Category:Men facing right, Category:Women facing left, Category:Women facing right ... We will have more and more of these combined categories because of the weakness of the user interface, not being able to combine two or more categories in a simple query, such as e.g. select x from y where category='Animals' and category='Facing left'. So, cause we cannot combine in queries we do combine in categories.--Frank C. Müller (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no problem with these at all, and some people seem to find these useful in finding types of images they with to reuse. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Starscream (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely useless if every animal facing left is categorized. I could understand to have a category with generic images only (drawings, silhouettes), but as it stands, this category is not only useless but also generating category clutter. --Elekhh (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be useful when it is full of pictures, more than 200. It is another category, and if pictures and categories are well categorized, it will be as usefull as any other. --DPC (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no consensus against keeping, seems to be useful. --rimshot^talk 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Animals facing right

See above under "Category:Animals facing left". - MPF (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no problem, and some people seem to find these useful in finding types of images they with to reuse. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Starscream (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely useless if every animal facing right is categorized. I could understand to have a category with generic images only (drawings, silhouettes), but as it stands, this category is not only useless but also generating category clutter. --Elekhh (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be useful when it is full of pictures, more than 200. It is another category, and if pictures and categories are well categorized, it will be as usefull as any other. --DPC (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no consensus against keeping, seems to be useful. --rimshot^talk 22:07, 7 June 2011 (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.

Category:1994 in Honduras

Reasons for discussion request --Hettie (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The matter has been discussed here and here. This is one of these categories categorizing a country by year where the whole country without any segmentation by year would not even fill a whole page. Besides, the year (1984 in this case) does not give any relevant information other then that one of our contributors traveled Honduras in 1984. Since there hardly came any objections against deletion of these kinds of categories at the Village pump I nominate this one for deletion now to see wether there are some convincing arguments to keep working with these categories which were kept hidden until now.[reply]

In my opinion this fragmentation in all those "by year" categories is useless, and makes it more difficult to find what one is searching for. Taxelson (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can use other categories too. J 1982 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, one should not do that, see COM:OVERCAT. Small by-year categories should be

Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a problem, can be of use. Infrogmation (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please specify that? I am spending quite some time already finding out why these cats can be useful, not to say indispensable. Hettie (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I doubt an argument satisfactory to everyone could be made that ANY category is "indispensable"! I simply find them useful. Categorizing media by place is useful, because places are not all the same. Categorizing media by time is useful because things are often different at different times. Categorizing media by intersection of place and time is useful as the consolodation of these two points. Infrogmation (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a photo of an archeological site, and of a river. Indeed, everything flows, but these images are quite timeless. See also the silly Category:August 1994. I would suggest that the people interested in this to work on a tool that uses the structured information in the date field of the information box, instead of fragmenting categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with Pieter Kuiper. Here was mentioned already that in cases like this, it us not very likely that tracking changes over a certain timespan is usefull as well as possible at all. Pieter repeats the lack of usefullness here. I'd like to add the shortage of feasibility. Has there for instance been added any new picture of Limon in Honduras after the 1994 one? How likely is it that somebody will come to the same spot, make a picture and even upload it to commons within the foreseeable future? Or did any wikipedian travel the Rio Platano after 1994 and manage to recognize the same spot to picture and upload it? Apart from the fact that it does not really make sence to track changes on these kinds of spots, since there hardly are any, it is going to be rather impossible to realize it. Hettie (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no reason to just delete this among all "year by country" categories. J 1982 (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You're right, that wouldn't make sence. I've chosen though to nominate just one of the very small "year by country" categories for now, instead of overfilling this page with a whole row of categories. Because that would not make sence either. I suggest you consider this single nomination as applicable to the other small "year by country" categories as well. Hettie (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        We can't delete a category just because we think it's "too small". Some will always be smaller than other. Year by country categories have the opportunity to grwow, soe keep it. J 1982 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        We are talking about categories which in my (and others) opinion do not have te opportunity to grow. Honduras 1994 is an example. The statement is that it is very unlikely that there will be added a significant number of pictures in this category, nor that there will grow categories which show the same locations in other years. That statement is founded with arguments above and on the other places this topic is discussed. Could you please found your statement that they have oppurtunity to grow? Hettie (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        We will never know that, let's say someone adds about politics, sports or wahtever. Keep it, and we don't need to restore it. J 1982 (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand that the category grows when somebody adds a picture of whatever in it. But how likely is it that some wikipedian accidentaly has pictures about politics or sports in Honduras in 1994, and adds it today, in 2010? "We will never know", you say. I do have a suspicion. I fear that chances are that we will end up with one picture in a 1995-category and some in a 1993-cat, if there will be added any pictures about the ninetees at all (there were elections in Honduras in 1993. It did not lead to any 1993-picture. That might illustrate the chances that the categories will grow within the forseeable future). Besides, I understood the main reason to divide a country in categories by year is that it would be usefull to compare different places in different years. That won't happen, in this case, when somebody adds a 1994-picture about politics or sports. It will happen only when somebody adds a picture in some other Honduras year-category of the Copan ballcourt (which is very likely to happen, though in this specific case hardly any changes will be visible), Dole at Puerto Castilla, the banks of Limon, the Rio Platano (of which I do not know the spot exactly) or the Tela railwaystation. Adding a picture about politics or sports in 1994 will only be usefull if a picture about the same event or sport will be added in another Honduras year-cat as well. Though I think these topics are not really suitable for comparision by year, since that would be usefull for fixed locations rather that for events. All this of course still as an illustration of the debatebleness of all these very small by-year-cats. Hettie (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think every country shall have a year category from when pictures are uploaded. Keep. J 1982 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that a "'tisn't" in the 'tis-'tisn't argument which I am trying to prevent. Hettie (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest closing this as "Kept" per no consensus to delete. Further discussion on guidelines as to when small categories are appropriate might be useful in some other forum on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which forum would be best? Hettie (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commons talk:Categories might be a good place for discussion of how/when categories should be used. Check out Commons:Village pump for other possible forums. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with Infrogmation. Just keept it, and end this discussion. J 1982 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This has been extensively discussed at the Village Pump. Most people say that the fragmentation in these small categories decrease the usefullness of the categery system. Yet J1982 (whose username already indicates that years are very important to him/her) just continues. Discussion does not work. The only countermeasure is to empty categories, and the to speedy empty categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know about the discussion but as long as the other "year by country" are kept, even this should be kept. J 1982 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - We are talking in circles. I gave you an answer on that on the 8th of May already: "I've chosen though to nominate just one of the very small "year by country" categories for now, instead of overfilling this page with a whole row of categories. [...] I suggest you consider this single nomination as applicable to the other small "year by country" categories as well." Hettie (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Who shall decide which are small? J 1982 (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Should the community agree that small by-year cats are not usefull, then the community is to decide where we put a line. Hettie (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I followed Infrogmations advice and opened a topic on Commons talk:Categories. So... let's make a move again, to that place this time. Hettie (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as kept, no consensus to delete, no active discussion in a year. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Works by year

This category was created in December 2009. It possesses virtually thousands of subcategories. However I don't really see the difference with Category:Art by year (created in December 2007) and its subcategories. --Teofilo (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Works by year" category (as it is used at en.wp as en:Category:Works by year) is more general than "Art by year" which might be a subcategory of "works". It includes as well technical works like ships or others like books, etc. --anro (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are quite few categories named "Category:art in yyyy". And the "Category:yyyy works" sytem looks more thorough. So let's go on like you say. Some books (poetry, novels) belong to literature which is an art. Teofilo (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think "Works" would be a general term, including say not only works of art but also for example postcards, magazines, letters, etc. Seems potentially useful to me. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Works is a wider term than Art and is also widely in use. __meco (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept more arguments for keeping than against and no activity in a long time. --rimshot^talk 23:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Lakers (ships)

"Lakers" is a colloquial localism -- equivalent to "Lake freighter" for those in to the know. Laker is ambiguous -- also used for a major sports team. While "lake freighter" is not ambigous. In my opinion, ambiguous, colloquial localisms should be avoided when there is a an unambiguous term that can be used instead. There was a Category:Lake Freighter, stripped of members and redirected to this category, without prior discussion. I suggest both these categories should redirect to Category:Lake freighters. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obvious that "lake freighter" is any less of a localism than laker. So having either term used as the category seems equally valid. Searching google for the term lake freighter on .gov domains returns only 110 results. Boatnerd has very few mentions of the term "lake freighter", usually using the terms freighter, bulk freighter or Great Lakes freighter. Of those only Great Lakes freighter would serve our purpose but I would suggest just leaving it as is. The category and the gallery page with different names serves just like a redirect. Rmhermen (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just found - The Lake Carriers' Association, a U.S. industry group only uses the terms freighter and laker on their website and online reports, not lake freighter. Rmhermen (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lake freighters is a term with only one possible meaning. Lakers is both ambiguous, and is a word whose meaning is only clear to insiders. It has no surface meaning. Its meaning is not clear to those who don't already know what it means. I regard these as strong reason not to use it. Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both titles are ambiguous as either category could conceivably include freighters that ply lakes other than the Great Lakes. It doesn't help that the parent category is Category:Bulk carriers (ships) (or maybe it should beCategory:General cargo ships which is where Category:Freighters redirects), and the principle of universality requires that subcats wherever possible use the same terminology. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lakers are a kind of bulk carrier, while bulk carriers are one type of general cargo ships. Rmhermen (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the roof of my building I can see freighters come and go from Toronto. Yes, today, they may all be bulk carriers, sugar, road salt, concrete. But, in the past, there have been lake freighters that carried other kinds of cargo. There were train ferries, for instance. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem including lake freighters from other large lakes in this category -- if there are any. If I am not mistaken the African Great Lakes are not connected by navigable rivers or canals. I believe the same is true of Lake Titicaca. If so transport on the lake is intra-lake, not inter-lake.
  I believe the River Niger that drains Lake Chad, is only navigable by shallow draft vessels. Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake are deep. But transport on them, and down the Mackenzie River is via barges pushed or towed by tugboats. Lake Maracaibo is not a real lake, it is a shallow, brackish estuary, and transport there is, again, barges towed by tugs. Lake Baikal has (had) steam powered vessels, I've seen old pictures, in the less than 1000 ton range. What kinds of water transport is there on the Yenisie? I don't know. Geo Swan (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like many of the CfDs from 2010 that made it until now without being closed, there is a good deal of talking and very little that could be considered actionable. There's no consensus for a move, so closing as no action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Böhlen

procedural nomination - see page history.--Chaser (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doppel von Category:Böhlen (Sachsen), es gibt auch Category:Böhlen (Thüringen)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mef.ellingen (talk • contribs)

That´s the problem - my english is not very well. I try it: It give´s the Category:Böhlen - it is empty. All pictures are in the Category:Böhlen (Sachsen) or Category:Böhlen (Thüringen). So the empty Category:Böhlen shpuld be cancelled. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not longer necessary and can be deleted. --Enst38 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since [User:Enst38|Enst38]] (the creator) says that the category is not longer necessary and can be deleted I have added the {{speedydelete}} tag, removed the Cfd tag and closed the Cfd.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:14, 12 May 2010 (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.

Category:Muséum des sciences naturelles de Belgique

This category allready exists as Category:Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, this is just a french translation and not a subcategory of the museum. I allready moved the pictures to Category:Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences where they belong. --Narayan (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, made into category redirect. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Rosa gallica culivars

Resolved

already existing category Category:Rosa Hybrid Gallica --Anna reg (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that it should have been "cultivars". I'll just delete this bad category. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 14 July 2010 by Jmabel (talk · contribs). AusTerrapin (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Bamboo scaffoldings

Resolved

Scaffolding is already a plural term, being a plural form of scaffold, no such word as scaffoldings--KTo288 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, go ahead and put it on the delinker. I have no issues with the change. Ingolfson (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the category can be kept as a redirect. --rimshot^talk 20:08, 6 January 2011 (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.

Category:Apertural views

Info: I'm now listing this very old Request to the deletion page og 14. Nov. 2011 to reactivate the discussion and to get a decision. --Ju Ta 19:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not useful at all. Majority of 70.000 species of gastropods have a shell which is usually depicted in an apertural view. --Snek01 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would further sub-categorizing be more useful? I agree that the category name seems too broad to be of much use, but maybe if it were "Apertural view of <insert specie of gastropod here>" it might be more useful. Killiondude (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I edit only gastropod related articles on wikipedia, I have no idea how theoretically or practically this could be useful. It is so broad category similarly to "Images of humans with head depicted" or "Buildings with walls depicted". This category can not form useful hierarchical structure and it is against Commons:Categories. Normal categorization according to the biological system will be fine. --Snek01 (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ideally apertural views would be completed by other categories: e.g. apical, basal, abapertural views, etc.
I agree with Snek that apertural is the standard view for gastropods. If we had a static number of single-view images and all other images were sorted by type of view, it might not be needed, but MediaWiki isn't exactly perfect in this regard and I don't think it's easy to sort them without. The mere number of items in the category isn't problematic. MediaWiki's categories aren't limited that way.
The presence or absence of any of the categories listed above shouldn't affect the biological categorization. If it helps, we could even make apertural views a hidden category. -- User:Docu at 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the name, I agree that it might not be ideal. One could be tempted to add it to anything with an aperture (or seen through an aperture), but the term seems to be in use primarily in the field. If problems arise, we can sort this out later. -- User:Docu at 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has a use - we should not forget that not only is a Wiki not paper (i.e. there is no limitations caused elsewhere by having this cat), this category also is useful EVEN if only a small fraction of all appropriate images are categorised accordingly (because people might need images regarding aperturial views, even if they have no need to be certain that all Commons images that would possibly be appropriate are sorted here) and EVEN if this category ends up containing 70,000 images. With Commons having several million images, even that would a very distinct, and %tagewise very small subset - and thus useful for categorisation. Ingolfson (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this case is an exact example in Commons:Categories#Why is over-categorization a problem:

“

It's often assumed that the more categories an image is in, the easier it will be to find it. Another example: By that logic, every image showing a man should be in Category:Men, because even if you know nothing more about the person you're looking for than that he is a man, you'll be able to find it. The result is that the top category fills up, making it necessary to go through hundreds, or in this case more likely thousands of images to find the one you want. You probably won't find what you're looking for, and what's more, those who are looking for a generic picture of a man to illustrate an article like en:Man will find that they've drowned out among the movie stars, scientists and politicians.

”

This category has no use. Nobody provided en example, how this could be useful. There is no evidence that "people might need images regarding apertural views" and if so, then there is not useful for them to see tens of thousands of images. If user:Ingolfson wants, he/she can start his a gallery containing reasonable amount of images. --Snek01 (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide two images that explain how you compare this? e.g. File:MurexPecten.jpg is in both Category:Murex pecten and Category:Apertural views, but neither is a subcategory of the other. -- User:Docu at 02:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question is quite misleading. The file you mentioned will be in one category Category:Murex pecten. Category:Apertural views will be deleted without compensation. --Snek01 (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying Category:Apertural views should be deleted because of over-categorization and quote the sample of Category:Men. That sample can mean that this file shouldn't be in Category:Men as it's in cat1 (and cat1 is in cat2 which is in cat3, a direct subcategory of Category:Men). It doesn't explain anything about why File:MurexPecten.jpg couldn't be in both. -- User:Docu at 06:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete As snek01 pointed out: the apertural view is the standard in depicting gastropod shells. This having said there should be a huge amount of such images. As a malacologist of profession I should bring forward that this site is not meant nor suitable for identification of shells. This is the only reason that I can think of, for being the underlying reason for making such a category. We should not want to give the impression that this may be possible. If this is not the reason for having this category, could in that case anybody explain to me what the reason for such a category is? In my opinion this hardly adds useful information (if any). I should like to see good arguments. Do we have categories for showing buildings from above, next to categories for buildings shown in front view?Tom Meijer (talk)

delete I agree with Snek01 and Tom Meijer. There is no use for such category. JoJan (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to read that you consider that it's "not .. suitable" for that. Is there something that can be done about it? -- User:Docu at 02:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably no. --Snek01 (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm wondering what Tom Meijer and JoJan think of it.
    After some thought, it would probably involve three things:
    1. Creating some sort of decision tree (e.g. WikiBooks:Dichotomous Key/Mollusca), either here on Commons or on another wiki. It could also involve looking at a printed one. Specialists probably wont need that, they already have it memorized.
    2. Categorize images and/or categories of taxa with these criteria. This can be done either here or by importing descriptions/template elements from other wikis (e.g. Wikipedia)
    3. Create an interface that allows to select/deselect images based on these criteria to compare it with a speciem. To some extent this can already be done through internal search, CatScan or CatScan2.
  - If one of the criteria in (1) involves looking at the specimen in apertural view, we'd need such a category. Personally, I made this category as I thought File:MurexPecten.jpg was somewhat under-categorized. Categories by type of view are used in many fields and it was missing there. -- User:Docu at 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of categories is not that there is theoretically or technically possible to categorize something but every category must be practical for somebody. It is not good idea to think, that "I see few categories, then I will create some additional strange ones". --Snek01 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. As it's practical for me, it's ok then. Thanks. Let's close this then. I set it to "hidden" so you wont have to look at it. -- User:Docu at 23:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete I also agree that there is really no use for a category such as this on Wikipedia. 24.215.213.120 12:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Dodo (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete this useless category.--Avron (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. It may be unnecessary from the viewpoint of a wikipedia editor. But it may be useful for a user from outside, like a website or advertizing designer. Sometimes they just want "a woman in red on a black background". Weak because the category is obviously not filled properly, and the prospects of such filling are very thin. Not me, but maybe someone? NVO (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sea and Sun

Sea and Sun is far too general, and not helpful. If I understand correctly that it is the name of a neighborhood in Tel Aviv-Yaffo, then it should be Category:Sea and Sun (Tel Aviv-Yaffo) in accordance with our standard naming policy for neighborhoods. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Go for it. Ori~ (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nominator. - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nominator. FieldMarine (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
moved as suggested Bulwersator (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Sea and Sun (Tel Aviv-Yaffo). --rimshot^talk 22:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Works made by non-artists

Category:Works made by non-artists

Should this be Category:Art works made by non-artists, but art works are by their definition made by artists. Various names for this genre with varying amounts of agreement as to the demarcations are "outsider art" (art brut", "naïve art", and "vernacular art". Not wanting to get into a cat fight over definitions, I suggest Category:Art works created by self-taught artists.KTo288 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted some similar categories in the past but they seem to come back. Some people seem to refuse the label "artist". The advantage of the current name is that it can include all difficult authors (children, machines, adolescents, monkeys, natural forces, ...) that are hard to categorise. --Foroa (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm barking up the wrong tree and you're not the one I need to convince, that being an artist is not just about training with the medium but also of the aesthetic sense, the files in the category at the moment, whatever the artist insists shows a strong exposure to Western art. As an aside machines and nature do not create art not having an aesthetic sense, what art there is is in the eye of the beholder and for this we have Category:Accidental art.KTo288 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have seen, there was already a discussion with the author non-artist (that makes art ...). But I guess with art, one never ends: Category:Fractals in nature for example, but what if they are been "helped" by mankind ... --Foroa (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating art by definition makes you the artist of that work. You may not be a professional artist, but in reference of said work, you are indeed the artist. The work you create may not be art, but if that's the case, I don't think we really need a category for "Non-artistic works created by non-artists". That's like saying we need a category for "Artwork by artists" (and I don't mean "by" in the categorization sense but as in "Artwork done by artists")... no, it's implied. Why do we need to differentiate based on the subjective and vague classification of the creator anyway? Wouldn't it be more useful to categorize based on the image itself? The creator, unless notable, isn't important. Rocket000 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about a name like that: Category:Works made by (mostly) unnoted creators?--Diwas (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the category and all files created by the category creator that make most of the categories content. Per COM:SCOPE#Examples. --Martin H. (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All files from this category nominated for deletion, as result this category is empty and nominated for the speedy deletion Bulwersator (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty after deletion of all files. --rimshot^talk 22:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Space

Change to "Category:Outer space" to match wikipedia. --FieldMarine (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Anytime we can match the way wikipedia dose it, I think is good.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Bulwersator (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Outer space. --rimshot^talk 22:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tam (cap)

Redundant with subcategory Category:Tam o' Shanters (not to mention misnamed as a singular). Cf. w:en:Tam (cap) redir to w:en:Tam o' Shanter (cap). Someone at some point asserted, with zero sources ever cited, even years later, that rastacaps a.k.a toppas a.k.a rastafars are sometimes called "tams", and decided to name everything on WP and Commons accordingly. But this doesn't seem to be the case, and even if it were some uncommon practice, it's an ignorant error. Tams are (among other hat styles) ancestral to rastcaps, but that's it. So, I'm undoing that ocnfusing and misleading mess (cf. merge tagging that was at w:en:Tam o' Shanter (cap) for a long time). In the interim I've filed a {{Move}} on Category:Dreadlock tam (another term with zero sources cited anywhere) to Category:Rastacap, and removed it from Category:Tam (cap), which now serves no purpose. — — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care either way as long as we are consistent across projects. FWIW Wiktionary:Tam differs from what you are proposing here. Evrik (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No objections. I note that while having regard to practices on other projects is helpful and informative, such practices are not determinative here as Commons categories play a unique role.Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Young women

Just to be 100% clear. I am proposing the following name changes

Rename Young women to Adolescent girls (yes this will require alot of re- categorizations that I will do.)

The following categories are also included in this discussion as they will have a new definition, but will not have a name change.:

The way these categories are set up, especially when it comes to the way the "by age" subcategories are set up, the proper image locations are very confusing. (see this previous cfd as example) We can easily find an image of a 16 year old categories right next to an image of a 30+ year old in a “Young Women” category.

As such, I am proposing that Category:Young women be renamed to Category:Adolescent girls and that all 4 pages have the following age definitions listed.

Definitions

1. Girls (birth – 13 (puberty))

2. Adolescent girls (13 - 17 years) instead of "Young Women"

3. Women (or perhaps Adult Women) (18 - 59 years)

4. Old women (60+ years)

I am using, but slightly modifying, the Physical stages of human life section found on the Human development (biology) wikipedia page. This will also match how w:Category:Images of young people describe "Young people" as that catrgory fall into Category:Childhood and Category:Adolescence

Obviously this can be modified with input from other editors. My logic on using Adolescent girls (13 - 17 years) instead of Adolescent girls (13 - 19 years) is that some images (such as nude images) need to be denoted as "Adult" aged at 18 instead of "Adolescent" at 18. Since this is a big change, I didn’t want to just jump in a do it without a concenus. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good initiative. I had always some reservations for "young women" as this is very culture specific. The most important thing is that we agree on the definitions and document them properly. We could use Women as "top level category", the others as specialised sub categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Foroa that using Women as "top level category", the others as specialized sub- categories is best.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it seems that no one by seem interested in making comments either way, I am going to start to make these changes. However, since I am really worried about other editors being very upset about the changes, I'm going to do it very slowly to see if I get some reverts or objection. Then the discussion may start or it may simply be a good idea, so that is why no one is objecting. To start with I am going only add the definitions to the pages to keep more images from being added and to propose the rename of the "Young Women" Cat. Yes some, if not most of the Category:Young women images, will end up in Category:Women and not in Category:Adolescent girls, but the new Category:Adolescent girls is what is needed to be created out of Category:Young women After waiting the two week period (per the "Move" template) I will start making the image moves.

However, for now I will wait and see what other editor think--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While documentiong, it might be the right moment to look at the male side too.

Definitions

1. birth – 13 (puberty): Girls - Boys

2. 13 - 17 years: (instead of "Young xx") Adolescent girls - Adolescent boys

3. 18 - 59 years: Women - Men

4. 60+ years: Old women - Old men

5: Children: 0 + 13 ? --Foroa (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however, I kind of want to take this slow. If this works I will also do the boys afterwords.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion about Category:26 year old men (also transcluded from Categories for discussion). It was deleted as I didn't put a 2nd image in it ;) (or whatever).

Back to this thread: Do you plan to these subcategories for women by age too? -- User:Docu at 19:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually already read Category:26 year old men. If I understand your question (which I'm not sure I do) I had only planned to use the Human development (biology) wikipedia to define what an "Adolescent" (13 - 17 years) and "Women" (18 - 59 years) is. This is mainly due to the fact that currently there is a "Young Women" category that is very arbitrary. Even "Women" can be arbitrary by culture. So many of those images are in both categories. “Young” is the main issue I had. However, I had ‘’’not’’’ planned to break it down so far as "26 year old women". I hope that answers your question.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't primarily think of the break-down, but do you plan to determine the age (and categorize by that) or by stage of human life (as the categories are named, and select the category by that)? What do you do with images were neither can be determined clearly? -- User:Docu at 07:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can do is my best when it comes to images were neither can be determined clearly. I am going by the assumtion that if the image was in any of the subcatagories of category:women that the image should be there. After that it is up to the new uploader to make that determination.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In old days the distinction was the marriageable age and the marry. That girl/woman was named: Maid!haabet 20:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is true. However that would put us back in the same place. What is "marriageable age". Some places it's 14 (middle east for example) and some it 21. We need a set age, and using the Human development (biology) wikipedia page give us that.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the moves, so I am closing this discussion, as it is no longer relevant, and opening Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/05/Category:Young men in order to make the same changes to Category:young men.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we re-open this. Sorry, I must have missed your (non-)answer above. Which is your primary criterion? -- User:Docu at 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't make myself clear. Here goes again. First if an age was in the description I went by that age. If an image was also inside and subcategory of "Women" or "Porn" while being in the "young Women" cat, I put it in with "Women". This took care of about 75% of the images. Then if an image was in the "Teenager" or "adolescence" category I put it in with Adolescent girls. This took care of about 90% of the images. Of those 10% I subtracted the DOB of the person (most had 19XX birth cats or I found it on the Wikipida page) from the year that the photo was taken. Almost, all the images fell into those setups except maybe 10. Since I didn’t upload the image I included it into "adolescence girls” by default. I figured that the uploaded knew more then I did. It wasn't actually very hard to sort them out. Most were extremely obvious as to which they belonged to. Most of the images were in the 25+ age of 16-18 year olds I hope that answers your question--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this sounds good. I wasn't too convinced about the result here, e.g. this. Many b&w photographs seem to come from events of this organization, which seems to be for ages 14-25. -- User:Docu at 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to make any changes you wish. I have decided that I'm not going to work within wikmeadia anymore, so if you fell something needs to be changed, by all means, change it or it wont get done.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really feel like reverting all these as the general structure seems reasonable, but I don't quite see how we could leave these in there. Maybe the initial category should be kept for images we can't easily sort. -- User:Docu at 12:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why no Category:Mid-aged women? Pitke (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ask about Category:Young and mid-aged adult women (18-59 yo) or about Category:Mid-aged women (30-59 yo)? (40-59 yo)? or Category:Young adult women (18-39) and Category:Mid-aged women (40-59 yo)?--Diwas (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect all girls- and women-categories to Category:Human females, Category:Human female children, Category:Human adolescent females, Category:Human young adult females, Category:Human mid-aged females and Category:Human old females.--Diwas (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Adolescent girls" should be for females in adolescence -- losing the appearance of girls, but not yet the full appearance of adult women. It is not an exact age, and I think it inappropriate to try to define it as such. (If you want strict chronological age, something like "teenaged women" (or "female teenagers", whatever) would cover 13-19. There's some overlap, but certainly a good bit of difference. Adolescence may be clearly apparent before the teens, and full womanhood before the end of the teens.) The same goes for similar male categories. We also have the problem that some images were put into the "adolescent" category simply because they were in the earlier "young women" category -- IMO highly inappropriately, since women in their mid 20s may often be commonly referred to as "young women", but are clearly far past adolescence. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this is an old discussion, and I don't really have a strong opinion either way (the current format seems to be working just fine), but I'm basically here to inquire about a couple of things. #1: Is it still really necessary to have the list of "definitions" of girls, adolescent girls, women, etc, listed at the tops of all the respective category pages? The "men"/"boys" categories seem to be working just fine without a key list explaining what boys, adolescent boys, men, etc are. #2: I'm not sure if this topic is essentially closed or what, but I believe this format will/should be implemented on both the "men" and "women" categories the same way. If we still need tags/definitions at the tops of all of the "girls"/"old women" category pages then the tags/definitions should also be included at the tops of all the "men"/"boys" categories. I guess what I'm basically saying is: It's time we either take down all the condescending definitions and tags cluttering up the tops of the "girls"/"old women" category pages or else we need to add them to the tops of the "men"/"boys" pages to generate more discussion and get this issue resolved once and for all. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main actor, ARTEST4ECHO has been attacked quite strongly because some people where quite upset that he moved their "Young women" in Women or Adolescent women, so he quit working on Commons in the middle of the boys operations. Now he is back but works mainly on Latter-day Church related items I believe.

In understand that you don't like the clutter, but with hundreds of contributors passing by every now and then (mostly because they uploaded a series of images) and with more than 2 million of categories, we need some documentation. In this case, I guess the best solution would be a template that includes women and boys (and is multilingual). Those cats exist equally in boys/women/Girls by country categories. So feel free to clean up and to remove CFD links. Thank you anyway. --Foroa (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I didn't realize there had been some contention with regards to the implementation of the changes. From what I see, the "Girls", "Adolescent girls", "Women" and "Old women" sub-cats all appear to be in use, "Young women" redirects to "Women" and the definitions have been at the tops of pages for over two years, so I wasn't detecting any obvious controversy with regards to said changes. Granted, we may have "hundreds" of contributors passing by, but they don't appear to be interested in this discussion (we've only had a handful of comments in the last 2+ years and there had been no comments for almost a year prior to my comment yesterday). And granted, we may have "millions" of categories, but I'd maintain that categories such as "girls"/"women"/"boys"/"men" are top-tier categories that are some of the most prominent we have (basically, any picture of a human being would fall into one of the eight basic categories currently being used and/or the respective sub-categories contained therein: "boys", "girls", "adolescent boys", "adolescent girls", "men", "women", "old men", "old women"). If we believe that all of the various tags/definitions are really necessary at the tops of all of the "girls"/"women" categories (as previously stated, all of the "boys"/"men" categories that I've seen appear to be working just fine without them), and we really believe we need to keep the discussion going for another two years (or more), then I maintain that we need to add these various tags/definitions to all of the "boys"/"men" categories that correspond to the dozens of "girls"/"women" categories the tags are currently placed on, in order to generate more discussion and get this apparently dead issue resolved. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Commons is some strange place. There are hundreds of people digging their burrows so they can drop (and find back) their images. As soon as they see a category structure that seems suitable, they copy or extrapolate it to suit their purposes. So very few people here document or read category documentation. Just working like in a nest of ants. So, since we changed the contested category structure, people added hundreds if not thousands of similarly structured sub-trees. There are about 600000 new cats per year on Commons and we have to rename only a few percent; so to speak, Commons is growing organically. So if this CFD is closed or remains open doesn't really matter: the new structure caught on in a couple of weeks or months, got copied on the boys sides and grew a whole web. If you would like to change it structure now, I guess you would have several months of work. --Foroa (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Which is why I'm not proposing a change in structure (as previously stated, I actually believe the current break-down works and I would say so if I didn't). My central point is that, as of now, the issue appears closed, but if not, then we should apply the same format/tags to both the female and corresponding male pages equally (there are enough confusing inconsistencies/duplicate categories, etc, here already without having discrepancies in general top-tier categories such as boys/girls, men/women). Despite the fact that this two-year-old discussion appears to have been basically dead in the water for a year, I'm not necessarily advocating that it must be closed. I'm simply proposing one of two options #1: It should be closed as resolved, or else #2: The same disambig "definitions" and discussion "tags" leading to this discussion should be placed on all of the corresponding "boys"/"men" articles the same way. I'd be willing to perform these tasks myself, but I'm just trying to get some answers here before I waste my time adding definition "keys" and discussion "tags" to all of the adjacent "male" pages, only to have an admin come along a week later and decide the whole thing really is resolved for all intents and purposes. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Implemented but need some documentation clean up. --Foroa (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Young men

Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted

Useless category that is not within the Commons project scope. A category in which penis photographs of Commons users are grouped do not even meet the criteria of COM:CAT. By the way, this deletion request includes the categorized categories there, too: namely: Human anatomy, set of subject 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07. --132.199.211.5 22:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's useful to see several pictures from different perspectives of what is unquestionably the same person's anatomy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1. re: scope: anyone with any knowledge of anatomy, medicine, or simply efficient cataloging of information should not have trouble understanding the logic of grouping photosets of anatomy images of the same person together. when we have a set of images of the same subject, it makes sense to group them together. since the media-wiki tools for organizing information are miserably limited, & since categories are effectively the default scheme of organization @ wmc, categories seem to be the best way of doing this..

2. the purpose of the category is not to collect genitalia images, it is intended for any photosets of the same anatomical subject. any & all such sets belong in the category; currently it happens to contain mostly genital images, because that's what i've been sorting; i've been focussing on organizing that material first, because there aren't as many users dedicated to deleting images of feets, hands, internal organs, etc.

3. commons is not censored.

4, the naming-scheme is provisional; i'm open to improvements. actively looking for a better system; usernames don't work, so...?

5. the nominator is an an anonymous IP account, whose only contributions to commons are deletion noms, who clearly has knowledge of commons procedures & who has turned up after a 6-month absence, apparently for no other reason than to nominate this category for deletion. seems like we've got a number of accounts being used in this way; i've come across several. possible sockpuppeting?

(also, the nominator did not show the courtesy of adding a notification to my talkpage, as creator of the cat.)

Lx 121 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above, it's indeed useful to organize the sets by subject.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category mixes the Commons-namespace for a Category in Commons with the User-namespace. H.fraud 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.187.97.174 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Lx 121. Kameraad Pjotr 16:54, 27 June 2010 (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.

Category:Mountains of Kent

Reasons for discussion request - There are no mountains in Kent, United Kingdom (a mountain being over 2,000 ft above mean sea level). Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We created a lot of categories for the Geograph upload. Some of these categories might not make any sense. I moved the 2 images to Category:Hills of Kent and deleted this category. Multichill (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2010 (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.

Category:Formula One circuits in Germany

Unnecessary, empty category. Formula One circuits are not subcategorised by country - they are all just included directly in Category:Formula One circuits. --121.45.111.217 01:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 08:42, 19 June 2010 (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.

Category:Infrared photographs of flags of the United States

Too narrow intersection, suggesting that the category be deleted. Currently contains only a single file. —Quibik (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category, sometimes, are made even to be filled. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no new entries. Deleted category, moved this single photo to a proper category --Leafnode✉ 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Animals at the Philadelphia Zoo

This category has been created a few days or weeks ago. If it is a legitimate category, all animals from Category:Philadelphia Zoo must be moved into it. As a subcategory of Category:Animals in zoos it sounds legitimate. But are the contents of a Zoo category going to include many things apart from animals ? And if this Zoo category is organized this way, then this should apply to all Zoo categories (Category:Zoos by country mentions 81 countries with at least one zoo, with some countries having 20 or 30 zoos) and that makes a lot of work I am afraid. I have no idea what is the best thing to do. Teofilo (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Category:Woodland Park Zoo has an entire subcategory for a carousel and also includes some pictures of plants and a few that are focused mainly on humans. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful category. There are 20 other "Animals at [zoo]" categories. Why did you single this one out? The parent category of a zoo should also (ultimately) contain photographs of zoo buildings, zoo grounds, zoo personnel... I count over a dozen pictures at present in Category:Philadelphia Zoo that are not of animals. The photos of animals at the zoo are typically more informative of those animals than of the zoo itself and so should be segregated. Whether or not it takes work to maintain this (and to move already uploaded pictures over) is really beside the point if it's a useful division.
However, I see a problem with intersecting individual animal species with zoo categories, such as the Category:Ursus maritimus in Philadelphia Zoo that you created. The result will be a lot of sparsely populated categories in both the zoo and the species parent categories, which will only hinder navigation of both. I could see one general subcategory for a species in zoos to separate them from photos taken in the wild, but which zoo the individual animal is found at is not going to have much bearing on what information the picture displays. So I think the best balance would be to keep the categories more general, such as Category:Mammals at the Philadelphia Zoo and Category:Ursus maritimus in zoos. Postdlf (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20 is not enough. There are more than 200 Zoos represented at Wikimedia Commons with many animals in them. 20 zoos is not representative of the collections of Wikimedia Commons which are much bigger than this. Either someone has the courage to create the 200-20 = 180 or so categories which still need to be created, or we remove these 20 categories. Teofilo (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Postdlf that such categories are sometimes useful. However, for zoos for which we only have pictures of animals, it's probably unnecessary to create a superfluous extra level of category. We can always recat later with a bot. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to photographs of animals, there may be photographs of flora and other attractions and amenities in zoos. It makes sense to have a category called "Animals at the XYZ Zoo" to segregate photographs of animals from such other photographs. (I should mention that I am not generally in favour of Postdlf's suggestion regarding keeping animal categories on zoo pages broad. I think this requires further discussion, and this may not be the right forum for it.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense to have a category called "Animals at the XYZ Zoo" with only 20 zoos in category:Animals in zoos ? While more than 200 zoos are actually represented at Wikimedia Commons ? Isn't that a misrepresentation of the collections at Wikimedia Commons ? Teofilo (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense. This is common enough. Just like we have categories like Category:Houses in SOME CITY for cities where we have lots of pictures of houses, but not for cities where we don't. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts:

While it is desirable to aim towards perfect consistency in all category structures, this is not achievable in the short term (or ever) as Commons is a work in progress. We have no choice but to tolerate differences. It doesn't have to be a matter of either "all 200 zoo categories must have an 'Animals in the XYZ Zoo' subcategory so we must create them now" or "we must delete all 'Animals in the XYZ Zoo' subcategories since other zoo categories don't have them".
If we accept that "Animals in the XYZ Zoo" subcategories are appropriate where there are a lot of images relating to a particular zoo and they are mixed up with images that are not of animals, why shouldn't a proper category structure be created to accommodate future growth even if there aren't many photographs in a particular zoo category at the moment? Taking Jmabel's example, if the subcategory "Houses in XYZ city" has already been created, why shouldn't "Houses in ABC city" also be created? Why differentiate between the two categories simply because there are fewer pictures of houses of ABC city than XYZ city? Having varying standards for different categories may confuse users who cannot see the logic behind the difference. Also, if we eliminate subcategories like "Animals at the XYZ Zoo", then it is sending a message to users that such subcategories are not at all desirable. By keeping them, it indicates that users may create such subcategories where appropriate.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Category:Animals in zoos by zoo name, adding

As of June 2010, this category contains only the animals in a few zoos. Many more animal-in-zoo-pictures can be found under Category:Zoos by country.

I hope this solution can satisfy most of the points of views expressed in this talk. Teofilo (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable solution. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept the category. There are still a lot of images to be moved, but that can be done without further discussion. --rimshot^talk 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Vatican City

Vatican, the Vatican, Vatican City, or the Vatican City?

Talks moved here from User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands --Teofilo (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the form "Vatican City" is more correct than the simple form "Vatican". Vatican is a palace; Vatican City is a State. So:

Rename Category:Coats of arms of the Vatican to Category:Coats of arms of Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Flags of the Vatican to Category:Flags of Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Photographs of flags of the Vatican to Category:Photographs of flags of Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Horses of the Vatican to Category:Horses of Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Money of the Vatican to Category:Money of Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Coins of the Vatican to Category:Coins of Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Museums in the Vatican to Category:Museums in Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:People of the Vatican to Category:People of Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Post of Vatican to Category:Post of Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Stamps of Vatican to Category:Stamps of Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Night in Vatican city to Category:Night in Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Last but not least, I ask at all: which is the better form, "Vatican City" or "the Vatican City" ? For coherence with the other countries, I prefer the form "Vatican City" (without "the"), but the most part of our categories are in the form "the Vatican City". : - (

Thank you at all ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Losing any extra "the" would be my preference. Ingolfson (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of "the Vatican City" in full, with "the". This is because we always use "the" for countries whose country name includes "the" on Commons : "of the United States", "of the United Kingdom", "of the Netherlands", and so on. Of course we never use "the" for countries whose names do no include "the" like "France", "Germany" (because people never say ~~"the France"~~ or ~~"the Germany~~" which would be English language mistakes). Teofilo (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most part of countries are without "the". Look e.g. at here. We have countries which are formed by more States, so we have "the United States", "the Soviet Union", "the United Kingdom", "the United Arab Emirates", or "the Netherlands" (= the low lands) (but, as incoherence, we have not "the Switzerland" or "the Germany"), or we have some islands-countries ("the Cayman Islands", "the Virgin Islands", etc.). So I think that it is only a problem of singular or plural States. The "Vatican City" is only a city. So I prefer the simple form "Vatican City" and not "the Vatican City". --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no "The Germany" or "The Spain" and so on, we should forget about "The Vatican". Vatican is also wrong, the correct English name is w:Vatican City. Actually, it's called Stato della Città del Vaticano, should we use the English name or the original (Italian) name? To be accurate, the English language name should be State of the City of Vatican City. For me, Vatican City is fine for now. It really gets complicated if you look at w:Holy See v. Stato della Città del Vaticano in terms of sovereignty/souvereign but I don't want to get into this now ... Thanks for the proposal --Mattes (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The United Kindom" is singular. "The Czech Republic" is singular. Teofilo (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"United Kingdom" is formed by England and Scotland (there was two kingdoms once). "The Czech Republic" for me is wrong: why not "The Italian Republic" or "The France Republic"? --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"<something> of the Czech Republic" and "<something> in the Czech Republic" are widely accepted category names on Wikimedia Commons. Teofilo (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO I think that's not a good idea to put in our categories the kind of government in the different countries. Italy, France, Germany was a kingdom, now they are a republic; Sweden, Norway, Nederlands, Luxembourg, are kingdoms, but we don't say "Kingdom of...", we say only Sweden, Norway, Nederlands, and Luxembourg. "United Kingdom" it's now a name, but it was a historical event; I can imagine that, if in the future it will become a republic, we will say "Republic of the United Kingdom", why not? But I think that for our categories it's not necessary and it's not good to put the kind of government. They can change, and so we change every time our categories? To be simple is the best way: Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, etc. Will we let some exceptions for the Czech Republic or for the Congo? No problem! Let we this countries so. But for the others, please don't complicate the situations! In this way I prefer "Vatican City" and not "the Vatican City". Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Vatican isn't a palace: it's the name of a hill (not one of the seven, it is on the right bank of the Tiber). Is think it is better of "the Vatican City". Or if you want to use the original "Status civitatis vaticanenis". I see that in English is used the article with those nations which have in their name a generic substantive (kingdom, lands, republic, states, island). Here we have "city": the city of London. --Carlomorino (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The correct name is indeed the Vatican City (see en:Vatican City, while en:Vatican is a disambiguation page). --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The situation is clear. The correct form is "the Vatican City". I will request to move 47 categories of the Category:Vatican City in this form. --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Rename to "XXX of the Vatican City". Rename processed 04 August 2010 by Foroa (talk · contribs). AusTerrapin (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Brussels metro

Back in Oct 2009, a user created this category, as a supercategory of the existing Category:Metro of Brussels -- but didn't give any explanation of why. I don't understand what the intended distinction is, and there are only three images currently in the category, so I think this should be deleted, and the images moved to the existing category. Sorry if this doesn't require the formality of CfD. --JesseW (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Metro categories I found that the standard is to name it (just a few examples) Saint Petersburg Metro, Prague Metro, Paris metro (and Paris RER), Munich U-Bahn, Lille Metro etc. Thus I think it would be better to keep Category:Brussels metro rather than Category:Metro of Brussels-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but we certainly should't have both. I'm convinced by your reasoning; I've added a note to the other category that we are now discussing renaming Category:Metro of Brussels to Category:Brussels metro . JesseW (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree-- Gürbetaler (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. For what it's worth, I see that English Wikipedia locates the article at "Brussels metro" and has a redirect in place at "Metro of Brussels". I suspect this came about because the Dutch term is Brusselse metro, while the French term is Métro de Bruxelles. But I think "Brussels Metro" makes more sense in English that "Metro of Brussels". cmadler (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Brussels metro is better. --Elekhh (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody agrees so the move should be done now!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done already in December. --rimshot^talk 22:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Human beings, by chronological age

I'd like to bring to your attention a string of recently created categories, mainly related to Anatomy, which have the doubtlessly laudable aim of separating humans from animals. As far as I can see these are mainly the work of a single contributor, Lx 121. I have several concerns, including:

Such a far-reaching recategorisation would be better discussed and agreed upon first, then a bot could do most of the work. I've seen a number of well-meaning personal projects such as this abandoned before completion which leaves us with yet another mess to clear up.
The names given to some of these categories are not always helpful. In particular, the unneccessary use of the comma, e.g. Category:Human anatomy, by chronological age, which contains sub-cats such as Category:Human anatomy, by chronological age, by component and Category:Human anatomy, 10 year old, male. Who on earth is going to remember that, even if they spend a fair amount of time on these categories? (Which I don't, as a rule).
The (potential) extent of these sub-cats if/when applied to related categories, such as Art, will increase the burden on editors and severely tax their patience.

I'm sure that the intention is good but am concerned - as a mere amateur who occasionally strays into these areas, mainly because I have an interest in art - that the task of finding suitable categories will become impossibly difficult with the result that many people simply won't bother. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related categories, tagged:

More to be added later but this is enough to be going on. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, which I somehow missed. A real "gem":

Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted.

Contains subcategories, unfortunately! Anatiomaros (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

with respect: i don't care what naming style is used, as long as it it clear, specific (disambitugated), & searchable

the "naming conventions" in place @ wmc currently are: a) chaotic c) NOT being implemented in any coherent, systematic manner & b) inadequate for organizing our database.

as for the specificity of categories; commons is a media repository, i.e.: a catalogue of files.

not a gallery

not a "picture album"

to properly serve the project's intended purpose, we NEED to have our file sorted as precisely as posssible, & covering as comprehensive a range of topics (as per scope) as possible.

(written in haste, i'm on vacation right now, will write more/better, when i'm back @ commons with more time availlable)

Lx 121 (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These categories (or similarly named ones) have come up in other discussions. I only see Lx 121, the creator, defending them. The naming of them is terrible and follows no established conventions. They just seem like a bunch of nouns and adjectives separated by commas. They're not even consistent between themselves: "Human anatomy, 10 year old, male", "Human anatomy, male, age 19", "Human anatomy, preadolescent, male"??? Seriously, why "Male human genitalia, by component: scrotum and testes" when it could be something like "Human scrotum and testes"? It's not just the names, some of these categories are way too narrow and are over-categorization. They were created without consensus, so the best thing is too simply put them in more appropriate categories, rename any worth keeping (which seems to be happening). Lx, as a friendly suggestion, I think you should consider working on some galleries instead. They seem more suited to the very specific organization you're aiming for. For example, you can create a page for some body part and organize it in countless ways. we NEED to have our file sorted as precisely as posssible No, we don't. We should have our files sorted to a level that makes sense. We could create a separate category for each image if we really wanted to be as precise as possible. Rocket000 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree absolutely with all these comments by Rocket000. With all due respect to Lx 121, if we were to adopt similar category names right across Commons we would end up with such monstrosities as "Bridgend, County Council; rivers of" and "American, male, human, adolescent (12-17), Caucasian (white), by state". Category names should be as simple as possible and make grammatical sense. I'm not sure if there are other similarily named categories still lurking in Anatomy and other categories as I gave up on trying to find them, but if there are they should be deleted, in my humble opinion. Anatiomaros (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anatiomaros and Rocket000 in any points. Another problem is, that Lx 121 has apparently no academic knowledge of human anatomy and the result of it are useless categories like his comma-creations without - mostly - encyclopedic value. Nevertheless he keeps on understanding himself as the expert in these fields and he is willing to defend his "creations" quite aggressively - unfortunately. I support the deletion of these categories: "Category:Human anatomy, preadolescent, male" and "Category:Human anatomy, adolescent, male". --High Contrast (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you High Contrast. About time they went. I've just found another one which I've added above. These names are farcical and make a mockery of Commons. Anatiomaros (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another classic: Category:Human nudity (has been redirected to Category:Nudity). Naked animals! What next? Anatiomaros (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with anatomy, but is a good example of the absurd and totally impracticable category names created by Lx 121. Thankfully it is only a red link to several files at the moment, but we may well soon be treated with this monster: 'Category:Hayami Shungyōsai (速水春暁斎, Japanese, *1767, †1823)'. For God's sake, what is wrong with using the simple and obvious 'Category:Hayami Shungyōsai', which already exists, as you can see? Maybe the intention is to redirect that to his intended new category? One has to wonder just what logic is at work here and how much more of this we will have to suffer. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That's all can I do is laugh, otherwise I'll cry. Rocket000 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another fun one: Category:Japanese "encyclopedia" of 1792 (proper title unknown/pending identification), scan set of the book (W-uk/bk-01). Rocket000 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catchy! Clear, precise and easy to find and remember (Not!). As you say, it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry! Anatiomaros (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a category name includes typos and other mistakes seems to mean nothing either. For instance, Category:Ryūtei Tanehiko（柳亭種彦), which I've just redirected to Category:Ryūtei Tanehiko (after creating it). Anatiomaros (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More fun to come: Category:Ukiyo-e calendar 2010, bought at Daiso chain store in Japan, image set of object ([8]). Anatiomaros (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and recategorized the files in the "by stage of development" categories. I left the "by subject-person depicted" ones for now due to this DR (but there was also this), but I still don't think we should have categories that group together certain body parts of Commons users... There's also Category:Human anatomy, by gender, which doesn't warrant a separate category from the main category I don't think (there's only so many genders, and "gender" vs "sex" is good to avoid when talking biology), and other "comma-creations" that aren't listed above so I'll leave this DR open. Rocket000 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this, Rocket000. I hadn't realised that 'Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted' was subject of another DR. Still think the name sucks, whatever the arguments for or against the category. It seems to have been populated mainly by Lx 121 and includes 'Category:Human anatomy, set of subject 11', created by him and now containing only a single file (there was originally 2, but that still doesn't make for much of a "set"). Totally agree with you that the "by gender" cat is pointless (as well as irritating because of the superfluous comma!). Anatiomaros (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, as impractical. Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted, was subject of a deletion request and kept. To discuss it, open a new request. --rimshot^talk 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Events in East Germany

All categories of events in East Germany were requested to be moved to Events of German Democratic Republic at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. I added them to the commands list but then realised it could have been controversial, after looking at the Wikipedia article and the discussion page. By the time I got back it was too late to revert so I went with the move. All other categories are under Category:German Democratic Republic so this might not be controversial after all, but some second opinions would be appreciated. --ZooFari 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason for controversy here. Although widely referred to as 'East Germany' the polity's official name was GDR/DDR, and besides, a change for this category would then involve changing all the other related categories as well. Why do that for no good reason? If 'East Germany' had been a recognised historical region of Germany (prior to the end of WWII) there might be an argument for it, but it's simply a term used in the West for the DDR. Does politics come into this, perhaps? Anyway, I don't think we have any reason to change our categories. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with "German Democratic Republic" rather than "East Germany". - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, German Democratic Republic is the correct name. --rimshot^talk 18:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Comet McNaught

There are more than 40 comets called "Comet McNaught" (see w:Comet McNaught (disambiguation)), and at least two of them now have images here on Commons. Therefore, I propose that each should be listed under its correct designation ("Category:C/2006 P1" in this case; see w:Astronomical naming conventions#Comets), each of which could be a subcategory of "Category:Comet McNaught", which would then get an explanation about the names. So, what I am proposing is 1. Create "Category:C/2006 P1" as a subcategory of "Category:Comet McNaught"; 2. Move all current members of "Category:Comet McNaught" to the new "Category:C/2006 P1"; 3. Create a new category for C/2009 R1 (and any other comets of this name for which we get images) as a subcategory of "Category:Comet McNaught"; 4. Leave a note at "Category:Comet McNaught" explaining that there are many comets of that name, and media files should be classified according to the specific comet. Does that make sense? If there's an easier/simpler way to do this, I'm open to other suggestions. --cmadler (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a similar suggestion on English Wikipedia at w:Talk:Comet McNaught#Article title/disambiguation. cmadler (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have picture of any other than C/2006 P1 ? -- User:Docu at 18:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far, just File:C2009 r1 mcnaught 9 6 10.jpg, which is currently unclassified within Category:Comets. There are additional appropriately-licensed images available (e.g. [9]), but I'm loath to add them until this is fixed. Also, after the article name issue is resolved on English Wikipedia I'm going to go hunting for more images of the various comets of this name for use in articles there, and since NASA images are public domain, I'd be surprised if I didn't find some. cmadler (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for me, though I probably would have chosen "Comet McNaught (C/2006 P1)" as title. -- User:Docu at 13:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The keys are that the name for each comet should use the same format and should be or include the name per the astronomical naming conventions. So either "C/2006 P1" or "Comet McNaught (C/2006 P1)" are fine; I'd prefer the former in the interest of brevity, but I'd have no great objection to the latter. cmadler (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you pick one, you might still want to add a redirect from the other (and from what other Wikis are using). BTW, it might be more explicit to use "Comet C/2006 P1" instead of just "C/2006 P1". -- User:Docu at 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created Category:C/2009 R1 (as a subcategory of "Comets") to start adding more images to, since the English Wikipedia article was on the Main Page (in "Did you know..."). But "Comet McNaught" still needs to be vacated (images moved to "C/2006 P1" or some variant) so it can be a supercategory for the different comets that share this name. cmadler (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Comet McNaught (C/2006 P1). Ruslik (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with the already created category, I have moved Category:Comet McNaught to Category:C/2006 P1. Is there any way to be certain that the images in question are indeed of this particular Comect McNaught? The description usually say just "Comet McNaught", which isn't particularly helpful. --rimshot^talk 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as super-category, with single comets as sub-categories. --rimshot^talk 07:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Categories by place or year of construction

I doubt that these category names are meaningful in English. I propose to rename them.

--ŠJů (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC), corrected by discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider what word is most suitable for vehicles: construction? fabrication? manufacture? production? making? erection? fitting up? mounting? expedition? --ŠJů (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Construction" it is like "design", "engineering". Bus designed in one year is "built", "manufactured" etc. many years. It is bad word. Category like"Buses in Poland built by year" is good, becouse it is category 1) "by place" and next 2) "by year built" (not in this place). It is subcategory "Buses by place" (country) and "Buses built by year" (built = "produced"). For example buses built in 2009 year is thousands. It is too many. This category needs subcategory - "by country" (place). Maybe we need too category "Buses by country built by year" for categorys like: "Buses in Poland built by year", "Buses in Hungary built by year". Category "Buses built in Bulgaria by year of construction" is bad. Words "built" and "construction" is the same! Category "Buses built in Bulgaria by year" etc. is good. But it is category 1) "by year built" (produced) in Bulgaria, not "by place" where buses are. This is new and different category! Marek Banach (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not very good in English, but English grammar isn't quite strange or incomprehensible to us. Some bus can be built "in year", but not "built by year". Buses are sorted and categorized "by year", not "built by year". Just like you can write "Autobusy wyprodukowane w 2000 roku" but not "Autobusy wyprodukowane według roku" - rather "Autobusy według roku produkcji". As regards syntax, English is very similar to Czech or Polish.

"By year of building" or "by country of building" (which is the right grammatical form) is also a possible variant, but the word "building" is homonymous (the basic meaning here is budynek, budowla) and it wouldn't good to use it unnecessarily in more meanings. --ŠJů (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the proposals. It should make it clearer and more easy to understand. I think, in terms of buses "by year of manufacture" is the most appropriate word, rather than "production". Although "production" is OK too. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed since it looks like the changes have already been made. ghouston (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Technical diagrams

English: Suggested description - please improve this: technical diagrams contains media that do not clearly fit in either Category:Technical drawings or Category:Technical illustrations. Consider moving an image to Category:Technical drawings if the image contains a Technical drawing, possibly with measurements, of a model sufficiently accurate to be transformed into a physical object. Consider moving an image to Category:Technical illustrations if the image appears to be a Technical illustration, accurate in terms of dimensions and proportions, that visually communicates information of a technical nature.

English: Please provide a "short description text that explains what should be in the category." What is the difference between a technical diagram and a technical illustration? See also Help:Category. Categories that need clearer inclusion criteria are: Category:Technical illustrations, Category:Technical diagrams and Category:Technical drawings (this last one does give an informative notice and an example, although several of the included media do not really fit).

--84user (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created the category wasn't active recently. Can you suggest one? Docu at 11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reluctant to suggest one because the distinction is not at all clear to me, but I have added a suggested description as a start, vague though it is. I have copied it above. Examples of each kind of "drawing" might help. I suspect this category is a catch-all or miscellaneous category, as there seems no clear criteria. An alternative might be to merge this category up to its parent Category:Diagrams. From there the images could be further categorised into clearer categories such as "graph-based", "chart-like", "cut-away", "exploded" and so on. -84user (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This never took off, and there's no clear path to proceede down here, certainly not one with consensus behind it. No action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Chess svg pieces

Category should be renamed to Category:SVG checker pieces to keep consistency with other subcategories at Category:SVG. --ZooFari 15:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean chess, not checker, right? Rocket000 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yes, Category:SVG chess pieces. ZooFari 20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Rocket000 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Town halls by style

Category redundant with Category:Town halls by architectural style. I already moved its only occupant, Category:Mannerist town halls, into the better category, so this category is now empty. --Powers (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "architectural" implied? -- User:Docu at 18:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, probably, but that's the populated category, and it matches the other categories in Category:Architectural styles by building function. Powers (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's redirect it there then. -- User:Docu at 13:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. (It was already empty.) Rocket000 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2010 (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.

Category:University by country

Delete Should be plural, but is also an unnecessary duplicate of Category:Universities and colleges by country. The only subcategory Category:University in Spain should be deleted as well. —Quibik (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons given. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged and redirected. Feel free to boldly empty and redirect in clear cases like this. Or use COM:DL if the categories have too many to move by hand. Wknight94 ^talk 03:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Interesting points

Perhaps this would be an appropriate page but it strikes me as an inappropriate category. I can't imagine any objective criteria to determine whether particular points (railway track switch) qualifies as "interesting". --Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. Rather a bizarre name for a category. "Interesting" is clearly a matter of opinion - maybe I find them all "interesting", maybe none at all - and "points" could be any "point" of any description, including the general sense ("Now that's an interesting point you've just brought up..."), not just railway points. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

images in the category of switches that are not commonly seen. interesting designs and solutions. thats all Hapesoft (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I stand by my original remark and strongly suggest a gallery page rather than a category. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" is a subjective term and hard to be defined. Not suitable for a Commons category. Yasu (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of gallery of railway track switches, a section on ones which are rarely seen might be very useful. As the name of a category, this is strange. Jonathunder (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now placed these all in a gallery on a page Unusual railway points. Hapesoft, if you or someone else want to add further image descriptions to that page, that would be great. I will remove the category, given that we seem to have consensus that it is inappropriate as a category. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category deleted; created equivalent page Unusual railway points. - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Statdmühle Dinkelsbühl

has been typo for one year as it should be Stadtmühle. Delete the old cat, or move it, please. I have created the correct cat. Why is this task so extremely annoying compared to wp? --Pommesgabel (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you didn't try {{Speedy}}

Done Docu at 11:15, 6 July 2010 (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.

Category:Central World

The shopping mall's official name is CentralWorld without space. This category can be tagged {{Category redirect}} instead of deleting it. --Quest for Truth (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty straightforward. I just asked the delinker to do a {{Move cat}}. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved - Catmove bot is done. Category has been made into a redirect. –Krinkle^talk 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Post in Barbados

Correct syntax appears to be "Post of (country name)" as seen inside the directory ( Category:Post_by_country which currently has both "Post in Barbados" and "Post of Barbados" already in it). --CaribDigita (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, made a redirect of the old name. --rimshot^talk 15:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Countryside in City of London

Deletion requested. Bot created category—there is no countryside in the City of London. --—innotata 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's never going to have anything in it. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2010 (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.

Category:Images of plants taken on June 1

Delete Agree, this is a particularly odd freak of our category system. --Dschwen (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear, you mean to delete the sub-categories only (the ones with month and day), not the parent categories (with only the month), right? If that's the case, then delete; we don't need anything more precise than a month. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The plain month-cat may make some sense. --Túrelio (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all others for photos taken on particular dates. This is far too specific to be of use. Jonathunder (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No justification has been provided;[10] it is unlikely to ever be completed; if it were useful, it would be better to auto-encode the "|Date=" syntax in the information box into hidden date categories; the date format should be en:ISO_8601 compliant. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even month is useless: December in the US is winter, completely different from summer december in Africa. --Foroa (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar thought. However, for images with (approximate) geographical location it might still be o.k. But without that, it would be useless. --Túrelio (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on the VP.[11] Rocket000 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please. Multichill (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for me too - MPF (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Jungemannia

Reasons for discussion request: Created by typo, should be Jungermannia with R. Proper category already created. --Tappinen (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread. I added {{speedy|typo, see Category:Jungermannia}} to the category. Docu at 10:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Buildings of the Barbados government in Bridgetown

A better syntax would be, "Cat:Government buildings in Bridgetown" I put it here because I need an admins help to delete the old one. --CaribDigita (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, renamed, unused. --rimshot^talk 16:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Medal «Golden Star» of Belarus

I've found in the Category:Awards of Belarus two identical subcategories. These are Category:Hero of Belarus and Category:Medal «Golden Star» of Belarus. My suggestion is to delete Category:Medal «Golden Star» of Belarus and all files from it move to Category:Hero of Belarus. --SZv (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be closed. SZv (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, looks sorted now. --rimshot^talk 07:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Books by genre

Merge "Books by function" into "Books by genre": These two categories seem rather ill-defined. When should an image or subcategory go into one or the other category? Currently the usage note at "Books by function" says "Books according to their function (i.e. books that have a function rather than being read 'just' for enjoyment. Any book that could also be considered a 'tool' in the wider sense)." Does that mean archaeology books, economics books and science books – indeed, all non-fiction books – should be here rather than in "Books by genre", where they are currently? I suggest merging "Books by function" into "Books by genre". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To answer your query re non-fiction books: No, they would not all be in "books by function" (though some might conceivably be both in "books by function" AND "books by genre"). An economics book which you note as an example could instead be sorted (as appropriate) into "Educational books" and/or "Reference books".

I think the key in the current definition is "Could you describe the book (book category) as a TOOL?". You can describe a pattern book as a tool - it has a function beyond being read just for the heck of it, like, for example, a science fiction novel. So has a Guestbook, it fulfills a function, i.e. "Books by function". A Guestbook meanwhile is not a "genre" in my view, and thus a merge for these categories would not make sense. Ingolfson (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess I'm having a difficulty with the "is it a tool?" test you proposed. Surely all non-fiction books "have a function beyond being read just for the heck of it", as you put it. Books on agriculture and economics, for example, have the function of teaching people about agricultural techniques and economic theories respectively. I am just thinking it is not very useful to have two categories where there is going to be a lot of overlap – essentially, most images of non-fiction books are going to end up in both categories. Perhaps we can consider dividing books according to fiction and non-fiction? Under fiction we would have different fiction genres (horror, suspense, romance, etc.), and under non-fiction would be books on different subjects (agriculture, economics, etc.). Cookbooks, log books and pattern books would fall under the non-fiction category as well, though I'm not sure what is the best term to describe them collectively. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI must say I don't agree with your concern - I have little issue with that overlap, and little issue with the test (the fact that it can be a bit fuzzy could be said for the choices when categorising maybe half of Commons categories). If a book HAS multiple applications, so why not sort them in both. And the categories sit side by side, so it's not like categorising them in both is against the sorting rules either.

The only compromise I can see at the moment is to restrict the "function" logic a bit (and amend the definition). I.e. make the "tool" aspect stronger, but more direct too. Therefore, a cookbook would still remain in "Books by function", as would a pattern book, but a science book or general non-fiction would stay outside. Ingolfson (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sure, I look forward to seeing your revised definition. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Textbooks (for the purpose of teaching) would also be another function; indeed the come in both Student (assignments and questions) and Instructor (questions with answers) versions.
SBaker43 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Genre" is used in the book business to indicate certain subjects: mysteries, sf, juvenile literature, self help books. its a marketing term of sorts. "function" is interesting here, referring to books that are used differently than books for edification, entertainment or education. the two should not be merged, though they are both somewhat vague, along with Category:Books by topic, Category:Books by type and Category:Non-fiction books, another book business term. I think the best we can do is define them as best we can, and try to fit various categories in as best we can. this is the human side of bibliographic science.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to merge the two categories, so I am withdrawing my proposal and closing this discussion which began in 2010. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Comic book writers

I've started a category renaming discussion here. Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, as this category has since been converted to a redirect. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:River locks

Reasons for discussion request: I wonder if this is a useful category, as we already have Canal locks and it is not so simple to categorise locks in rivers with a parallel lock canal. E.g. The river Meuse have canals where the locks are situated. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is somewhere a place to discuss categories. But this is a simple case which can be dealt with by a move proposal. Could they be fused to a Category:Canal and river locks ? If yes, make a simultaneous move proposal on the two categories to start the discussion there. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts. Have a look at category:Canal locks and you'll find that it is not so simple to move all these files. One has to rename a hell of a lot of categories that way. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction is useful, but if you want to take this to the right forum it would be Commons:Categories for discussion. - 05:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Category:Locks (water transport) in line with en:Lock (water transport). Multichill (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Much better idea. Otherwise you have to investigate the circumstances where the lock is situated. In my opinion a lot of work and with doubtful results, if any. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Pline (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections by this weekend I'm going to mass move Canal Locks to Locks (water transport). Multichill (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, especially since many locks are on the boundary of a canal and a river. --Foroa (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Canal locks is the term that is generally used. A stop lock on the boundary of a canal and another waterway- river or rival canal company to prevent water loss is a special case. The Rochdale Canal has 90 pound locks in is course do it can climb over the Pennines, and a 2 stop locks. Similarly, in my book a river doesn't have locks- when it is modified to use locks it becomes a navigation see Mersey and Irwell Navigation. There is a subtle difference between searching for a article on how locks work- and needing to find an image of a feature on a canal.--ClemRutter (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about dock locks? Keith D (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the topic to comment on the merits of the different proposals, but on a related note, I think further clarification of the distinction between Category:Canal locks and Category:Sluices is needed. They're also badly overcategorized: Canal locks is a subcategory of Sluices, yet both categories are direct subcategories of River transport and Canals. Additionally, Sluices is both a child and parent of Weirs. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canal Locks as a subcategory of "Locks (water transport)" is needed - eg Category:Lock gates in Kingston upon Hull - these are not on a canal but someone (User:BotMultichillT) keeps adding them as canal locks. - so I've created Category:Locks (water transport) - there are probably other misplaced dock locks (note some docks locks are canal locks...) in the category.

I see no problem with "canal locks" as a subcategory.Imgaril (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if a river has locks on it is has been 'canalised' - this doesn't necessarily make "canal lock" always a good title.Imgaril (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into canal locks. It's hard to separate river locks and canal locks because of their integrated function, but while all river locks are at least related to canals/canalisation, not all canal locks are related to rivers. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Although there are places where it is not clear whether to call something a "river lock" or a "canal lock" -- the Mohawk River and Erie Canal come to mind -- there are quite a few river locks that are clearly not in canals -- the whole of the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Columbia, for example -- no one would say that any of those have been been canalized. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 28 May 2013 (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.

Category:People by country

Most people categories are in the form "People from location". However all the categories at the top are in the form "People of location". I'd like to suggest we get consistent (we're fairly consistent at each level or "by <criterion>" group, but not all the way through). Please look at the subcategories of Category:People categories by country. I guess some of them can stay "People of..." (some may even by "People in...") but I think most should be renamed to "People from..." Rocket000 (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "people of xxx" category count is nearly 50 % higher than the "people from xxx" category count. After several years, at the parent category level we managed finally to get it almost uniform at "people of xxx". For consistency, most (lower) "people from xxx" categories should be renamed to "People of". --Foroa (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be for "people from/of xxx" but I would to know the count for "xxx from xxx" vs. "xxx of xxx" where the first xxx refers to any kind of people, like artists or scientists. However, we have to do these case-by-case since things like politicians should be "of xxx". Those categories may also help illustrate the differences between "from" and "of" for me. Rocket000 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation, I believe we can go either way. It's about the same—there will be a lot to rename either way. It really comes down to personal preference. I vote for "of", I think, although not strongly. I'll post on the village pump because it seems like it's always just us few category maintenance workers that do all the discussing. Rocket000 (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak preference for "of" because "from" suggests specifically where the person was born. Living in Seattle, I'm particularly sensitive to the fact that someone can be strongly associated with a city without being born there. Most of our mayors weren't born here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I do do have a strong preference for the "people of" way, although it is not personal. The main reason is that "people of xxx" is the more open and wide term, so it can contain the more narrow people "originating from, living in, worked in, died in, ..." classes, so I guess that it stabilised rather in "people of" which stopped de profileration of the other types of " people in/from/living " naming and why there are several hundreds "people from xxx" less than "people of xxx". A part from the politicians of, this problem/proliferation does not seem to appear in the people by occupation categories. It is hard to understand it all. --Foroa (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I've interpreted the current ways of working is that the top level should be People of X, and by occupation subcategories and similar should be from, except civil servants, diplomats, politicians, royalty and others that have some sort of official connection to the country. Using of instead of from for everything creates problems with things like Collectors of China (apart from the capitalisation, porcelain aficionados?), Models of France (small versions of France or just petit Frenchwomen?), Designers of Norway (Slartibartfast?), and many others (Editors, Educators, Engineers, Explorers, Inventors and so on). —LX (talk, contribs) 08:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Slartibartfast won an award for that! -- Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus on this yet, eh? Skeezix1000 and I were just trying to figure out how to organize the Canadian categories. I think Foroa is right that "of" is more open, but LX is also correct that it could create confusion with several occupations. Since I think LX's formulation makes a good compromise, I'm willing to support making it a guideline. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Foroa's assessment of "of", and I got a laugh out of LX's examples. So, just to make sure I understand, the "LX formulation" is: "People of [location]", but "[occupation] from [country]" (except for the ecception LX mentioned about people with official connection to the country). Have I summarized it correctly, or am I missing something? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. That was the idea. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets state it another way. Being or staying somewhere: "people of" (including royals, politicians, diplomats). Doing something somewhere: "people from". --Foroa (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and like how you've conceptualized it, but I would elaborate just so that the guideline is clear:

Originating from or residing somewhere → People of [location] (e.g. Category:People of the Netherlands, Category:People of Toyama prefecture, Category:People of San Francisco) (also applies to men, women, children, etc. e.g. Category:Women of Sicily)
Doing something somewhere → [Occupation] from [location] (e.g. Category:Physicians from South Africa, Category:Artists from Montreal)
unless the occupation has an official connection to the location, in which case → [Occupation] of [location] (e.g. Category:Royalty of Spain, Category:Mayors of New York City, Category:Presidents of Mexico, Category:Diplomats of India)

--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary. I will not pretend that this was the intention from the beginning, it is just how it evolved after several years of careful harmonisation work. There are still some of/from differences in the countries that are closest to the en:wikipedia that uses much more the "from". --Foroa (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(English) wikipedia is quite different, because it uses en:Category:Canadian people rather than Category:People of Canada. I think the system outlined above works better. Should we take this to Commons talk:Categories and see if we can make it a universal guideline for Commons? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems clear enough without further discussion. Commons:Categories is neither policy nor guideline, so you could just be bold and add it, but this may be too detailed for a help page already suffering from instruction creep. A new category scheme is probably the best way to document consensus. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Commons:Category scheme People. Thoughts/contributions encouraged. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. No active discussion for a year and a half. (Agree that grammatically a great many people may be "of" a place and not be "from" there.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Via Appia

Images of the Via Appia and adjecent monuments are strewn across Category:Via Appia, Category:Via Appia (Rome) and Category:Appia Antica (Rome), which makes it hard to locate (or even properly categorize) specific images -- Kleuske (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed hierarchy:

Via Appia
- Via Appia Antica
  - "Historical Images of the Via Appia" or "Via Appia (historical images)"),
  - "Monuments along the Via Appia" or "Via Appia (monuments)",
  - categories for individual monuments along the Via Appia Antica (there's a lot of those).
  - A more general category for monuments, graves, statues and sculptures not in any other category.
- Via Appia Nuova (the modern Via Appia)

:Makes sense to me. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<snigger> Given the overwhelming interest in this proposal, i'll take it as an aye and call it consensus. Kleuske (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hierarchy proposed by Dall'Orto is optimal. Moreover, the problem of this old roman roads is that some times the old road = the new road; some other times the new road has a parallel way. For the Via Appia we have both situations. Sure in Rome the "old Via Appia" = the "new Via Appia" (so that the Category:Via Appia (Rome) must be a subcat of the old road Category:Via Appia Antica and at the same time of the new road Category:Via Appia. But this equality is not everywhere true for the rest of this way. Last but not least, I think that perhaps a more correct name for the "Category:Via Appia (Rome)" can be Category:Via Appia Antica (Rome). What do you think? --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I organized the Via Appia categories and files as follow :

Category:Via Appia for the new road of the Appian Way from Rome to Brindisi;
Category:Via Appia Antica for the old road of the Appian Way from Rome to Brindisi;
Category:Via Appia (Rome) for the new road of the Appian Way in Rome and in his vicinity;
Category:Via Appia Antica (Rome) for the old road of the Appian Way in Rome and in his vicinity.

- Category:Via Appia Nuova is now a redirect to Category:Via Appia.
- All the old monuments and tombs long the old Appian Way are now in the sub-categories of Category:Via Appia Antica (Rome) subdivided by miles from Rome.
- It is possible to produce new categories by monuments (e.g. "Ancient Roman mausoleums [or tombs] of [or long] the Via Appia Antica"), or by art artefacts (e.g. "Category:Ancient Roman sculptures [or reliefs] of [or long] the Via Appia Antica") if somebody needs them.
- Category:Historical images of Via Appia Antica and Category:Via Appia Antica in art are sub-categories at the same time of cat "Via Appia Antica" and "Via Appia Antica (Rome)" because they shows 90% (if not more) monuments long the old Appian Way in the vicinity of Rome.
--DenghiùComm (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, since it seems to have been resolved. ghouston (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Alumni of the University of Alabama

Recommend renaming to Category:University of Alabama alumni. This is a much simpler category name. It also matches the majority of categories in Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States and it also matches the sister entries in Wikipedia (see Category:University of Alabama alumni).
This recommendation is to standardize naming throughout Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States to "XXX alumni". Thanks! --FieldMarine (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an international project with many languages, we need to be more strict with the (few clear) naming rules. The basic commons category naming rule states "Topic [qualifier] [Qualifier]" and certainly not the topic at the end of the name as in "xxx alumni". "Alumni of xxx" is the implemented worldwide standard, and only in the USA, some harmonisation needs to be done. --Foroa (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is also an international project. Why should the rules be different for sister projects? I would think harmonisation and standardization across the projects would be helpful whenever possible. FieldMarine (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia you refer to is an English-speaking project (other Wikipediae use different, language-specific constructs for such cats, and internationalization of cat names is currently not technically possible), Commons is multilingual (and using English as a lingua franca) and therefore can have specific constraints. Using the syntax "X of Y" is a choice justified both by harmonization (with cats of uni alumni of other countries, but also with the thousands of similar differentiated cats present on Commons -- harmonization work on Commons didn't begin yesterday) and by the concern of using the simplest and most widely understandable English syntactic structures. --Eusebius (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support Foroa's point of view, which is really the Commons de facto standard - i.e. Alumni of XXX. Ingolfson (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have around 700 sister projects, each with their own standards. What's important on Commons is that we use a consistent (worldwide) naming and that categories are in line with the naming of their parent categories. Anyway, I would not be surprised to see the en:wikipedia category naming changed one day with its horrible (occasional) right-to-left syntax and not extensible/modular; try for example to extend this one: Category:University of Georgia alumni to Category:University of Georgia (US state), campus Sapelo Island, Marine alumni . --Foroa (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is a related discussion at the village pump[12]. Benchill (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support returning the category names to University of Alabama alumni etc. They appear to have been changed en masse without discussion, which is against the instructions. It ought to be possible to have a uniform system here and matching en:wikipedia, a divergent system isn't helpful, I think people won't bother to categorise files so often if Commons has it's own peculiar system. I personally dislike the "horrible" system on en isn't a sound reason to make broad changes. I appreciate using English may not be so popular with people who don't speak it, there ought to be a technical solution to this issue - multilingual categories, or a centralised category system for all projects. Benchill (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our role is to uniformise category name structures at all levels and to make them consistent. Uniformisation will happen anyway without questions asked. Disliking a horrible system is not so much a personal opinion but a personal wording for a technical solution that is flawed. --Foroa (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. Per Eusebius & Foroa. Altairisfar_talk 07:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, since the name now matches most of the others in Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. ghouston (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Hydro-electric schemes

Hi. I propose deletions to the following categories:

Because there are no such things as "Hydroelectric Schemes" or "Pumped Storage Schemes" in general. Names of facilities such as these are just what they are called, not what it is. The contents of the second category can be directly moved to this category, while the first category can be sorted into subcats of this category. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if the "plant" is the entire "scheme" or just a "power station".

Category:Galloway hydro-electric scheme includes a series reservoirs, dams, power stations. It could also include transformer stations and more.
On the other hand, e.g. Category:Pumped-storage hydroelectric power plants includes categories for many different parts, without much consistency.

If there is a better name for a category that would group categories for an entire scheme, I would be glad to use that. Docu at 11:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, generally the "plant/station" refers to the whole scheme or facility. Similar to most "dam" titles referring to the dam and its power stations/plants, etc. Occasionally, we do hear different names which refer to particular parts of the whole facility, but that depends on the way its called locally. Either way, "schemes" are not any specific type or etc, its just an alternative way to say "the dam, its power station/dam, its lake, its etc etc"... People may or may not use "plant/station" or "scheme" in the names of their facilities, but that just the name, nothing else. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about "project" as part of the name to cover more general things? Would that help? Scheme seems a rather UKish word to this USian. (Category:Galloway hydro-electric scheme certainly could go inside a putative "hydroelectric project" (or "hydro-electric project" category). Hope that is helpful. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar. "Project" on the other hand, is generally used by the developers and other people behind the development. It is very unlikely that any facility would be referred to by such name by the general public. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Project" could indeed be another possibility. To sum it up, we have the following:

The entire facility/scheme/plant/station/project
a dam
a power generating station
a reservoir/lake
a transformer station
etc.

Thus we need to decide which term to use for categories grouping each part. For some, it already seems clear, i.e.

For dams, we already got Category:Dams
For reservoirs, we got Category:Reservoirs

I will think about unambiguous terms we could use for the others. A solution should bear in mind national differences in terminology and take in account that the purpose of some elements might not be limited to its role within the scheme.

It doesn't necessarily matter how the categories for specific "schemes" are called. If regional differences in terminology are too big, we could consider having separate names for some countries, but I'd rather avoid this. Docu at 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Docu. I mean no offence, but, this discussion is related to the above two mentioned categories. Lets stick to that for now. I would be happy to discuss individual category naming once this is done. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but you brought up "station" which could be both (1) and (3). We need a term for (1) that is different from (3). Docu at 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for a change. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Hydroelectric power by country

Hi. I propose a rename of all of the categories in the mentioned category in the following way:

Hydroelectric power in Country to Hydroelectricity in Country

Hydropower is the energy (including electrical) gained from water. And Hydroelectricity is the electrical energy obtained from Hydropower. Depending on consensus, the categories can also be renamed to a more parent-type Hydropower in Country. But either way, the current naming format is wrong; it should be Hydroelectricity or at least Hydropower, not Hydroelectric power. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Redundant discussion with Category talk:Hydroelectricity. Category:Hydropower is used to drive watermills, waterwheels and probably other things too. category:Hydroelectricity is about the technology to generate electricity from hydropower, hydroelectric power is the resulting power of that. --Foroa (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Foroa. Just to clarify, this is not a redundant discussion; I did mention there that I will take it to CFD soon. To the topic, leaving the accuracy of "Hydroelectricity is about the technology to generate electricity from hydropower, hydroelectric power is the resulting power of that" aside, you still cannot have a category for "Hydroelectric power", even if the above is true or not. We currently only have files that show the "Hydroelectricity" technology. What files do we put into "Hydroelectric power"? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral concerning Hydroelectricity in Country. After some further investigation and thinking, I come to the conclusion that both systems have their advantages and drawbacks. --Foroa (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for the change. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Statue of Liberty

I would like to perform the following category renamings :

Rename Category:Statue of Liberty (talk) to Category:Statue of Liberty (New York) (0 entries moved, 126 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Replicas of Statue of Liberty to Category:Replicas of the statue of Liberty of New York (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Statue of Liberty in art to Category:Statue of Liberty of New York in art (0 entries moved, 300 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Statue of Liberty on coins to Category:Statue of Liberty of New York on coins (0 entries moved, 14 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Statue of Liberty on stamps to Category:Statue of Liberty of New York on stamps (0 entries moved, 56 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Statue of Liberty costumes to Category:Costumes after the statue of Liberty of New York (0 entries moved, 67 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

The reason is that there are many other statues of Liberty in the world, as listed in category:Statues of Freedom.

Teofilo (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Foroa (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the Statue of Liberty: in the USA, of course, but around the world as well. Look at the Wikipedia links at Statue of Liberty — none of those using the Hebrew, Cyrillic, or Greek alphabets have any form of "New York" in the name, and only three using the Latin alphabet. In my mind, this shows that it's generally known as the Statue of Liberty (or a translated form) around the world, even in France and Spain that have three statues in subcategories of Category:Statues of Freedom. Let's keep this category name consistent with the name most of the world uses for it. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the world is ignorant of the existence of other statues of liberty. But is the purpose of the Wikimedia foundation to promote knowledge or ignorance ? Teofilo (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Wikipedia article is titled without the New York designation, so I don't see the need for doing so in Wikimedia Commons. Xnatedawgx (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is not a container for files, like the Wikimedia Commons category is. "Statue of Liberty" is a perfect wording for any allegory of liberty depicted in sculpture, anywhere, at any time in the world so it leaves open the possibility that people will mix all kinds of statues of liberty into that category, whereas if we use a category name with "New York", people will know that this category is not suitable for other statues. Teofilo (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See into which category File:Fedipio.jpg is being inserted now. Teofilo (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was done by an auto-categorizing bot. It's used in an article about the Statue of Liberty (which was it's inspiration but no one calls that "Statue of Liberty" too). At least it was a statue of some sort and the category wasn't something random like "Rail transport in England by county" which these bots tend to do a lot. Rocket000 (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Statue of Liberty is only one, first and most famous. Every hearing this name, at once thinks about the New York City. Other monuments having the similar names or the similar symbolics, one modelled on this idea. --Starscream (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Every hearing this name, at once thinks about the New York City. " Yes and this is a prejudice. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to help prejudices or to fight them ? Teofilo (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying we should rename Category:Abraham Lincoln because other people have same name and going with the one that's unquestionably the most associated with that combination of letters is a prejudice. (BTW, prejudice is not really the right word. Maybe predilection or bias? Americentric?) The only thing it would do is make categorization harder and more work for everyone else since no one's going think something like this would be disambiguated. Put a see also hatnote at the top if you need to but don't disambig to make a point. Usability and accessibility are more important than political correctness. Rocket000 (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ditto as per above comments that oppose. I don't see the need to dab. RedWolf (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question If it would be moved, what should be at Category:Statue of Liberty? -- User:Docu at 08:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Discussion closed: No consensus to rename. -- User:Docu at 09:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Reopened the discussion that was closed by User:Docu at 09:31, 18 October 2009.[13] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the fundamental problem I do have is that for some names that exist currently in 13 places, but in practise in 20 or 30 places, augmented with various "Liberty Enlightening the World" variants, we disambiguate. I am really stunned if we have such series of categories and for one of them, we say, in our world (Western and US), we have a special rule that you have to know/guess: the category without disambiguation is the one from New York (I could live with a redirect to the New York one, but it contains already many images that are not in their right category). I can understand that for capitals with a very long history, we don't disambiguate but I think that can be the only exceptions. There is no rule in Commons that gives a priority for a name over another in case of disambiguation, and I see no reason to make exceptions on that because for each of the 700 projects Commons is serving, the priorities might change. The en:wikipedia is not necessarily the reference, because it is very much US/UK/Western world oriented (in that order) and it provides 3 million articles out of the 14 million wikipedia articles. I am moving almost daily such categories to avoid disambiguity without asking any questions (and I am spending a lot of time explaining to users why we cannot give priority to "their" item name). --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question We have Category:Stonehenge and Category:Parthenon. Should these, and all similar categories, be treated as has been proposed here? Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- of course if there are several categories that start with that name. Do we need a naming system or a celebrity contest ?--Foroa (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking of Category:Stonehenge Replicas and Category:Replicas of Parthenon, but I see now that they are not the same as Category:Statue of Liberty (Budapest). Thank you for clearing that up. The Budapest (the second largest category) and New York categories contain 36 and 165 files respectively, but the disparity is not overwhelming. In the interest of multiculturalism and internationalization, I'm inclined to support, but will read other comments with interest. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: if someone says "Statue of Liberty" without further qualification, this is the one they mean. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is typical American/Western. Go tell that to a guy in Ukraine or China who learned at school (in his language) that your symbol is called "Liberty Enlightening the World", knows hardly the difference between New York and Texas, and who needs to use google translate to find the term "Statue of Liberty" for his own "statue of Freedom". Of course, "Your great" Houston is the most important one; the others are supposed to know that they are not important whatsoever. And you call this a categorisation "system" and an international project. --Foroa (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose FOr the very reasons you mention. If I were to mention The Great Wall, wouldn't your mind leap to China? In fact, Great Wall redirects to 长城. If you'd like you can redirect Liberty Enlightening the World in Chinese to the English equivalent, just for fairness sake. The fact is, this is the most famous statue with this name, and disambiguation is not necessary. -Nard the Bard 02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Just to point out that the category for 长城 is actually Category:Great Wall of China (the "of China" being the relevant part for this discussion). -- IANEZZ (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support because of the reasons Foroa has mentioned.--Wouter (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned “don't assume other users share your background” it means that the “oppose” and “support” mentioned here, is not a good representation in my opinion because just these other users do not read this. The best approach in my opinion is that as soon as the meaning of a category may be unclear for some of our users, the category should be disambiguated whatever the subject may be. Wouter (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support far more logical, even if the New York Statue is the most known (and it’s not the original “real” name). Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 15:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nyttend, etc. This would be a great disservice and inconvenience to a vast majority of people. Wknight94 ^talk 19:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a great disservice for the great American cause. --Foroa (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic - you expose your own cultural bias while giving zero evidence of mine. I don't think there needs to be a Category:London, England any more than I think there should be a Category:Atlanta, Georgia - and I don't think we need Category:Red Square (Russia) any more than we need Category:Statue of Liberty (New York). Wknight94 ^talk 23:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mentioned above, Statue of Liberty (Budapest), the second largest category after New York, actually seems to be literally called the Liberty Statue, sometimes the Freedom Statue, but not the Statue of Liberty. All of the others that are categorized as a "Statue of Liberty" are located in non-English speaking countries. They could translated in a variety of ways, but, for some reason, their native names aren't being used to categorize them here. Altairisfar_talk 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Naming categories says, "The real policy with regard to proper names of individual persons, places, buildings, organizations etc. and other stable specific names of local phenomena is multifarious, full consensus isn't achieved yet. See current practices and discussion pages." Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we close this? The rename proposal doesn't seem to gain any consensus. The current title seems consistent with Commons Naming Pratices. -- User:Docu at 08:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I very strongly support User:Teofilo proposal, or some variation of it.

Other people made this important point above, but those who think it is obvious that the New York City statue should have pride of place, don't seem to be responding this important point -- or even recognizing it. To non-English speakers, even those who might recognize the iconic New York city statue, the name "statue of liberty" is not obvious. They know it by the name it is known by in their mother tongues, which almost certainly won't translate as "statue of liberty". I am old enough to remember the Tien a Mien demonstrations that preceded the Tien a Mien massacre. Demonstrators dressed up to look like the statue of liberty: flowing robes, big pointy crown, upraised torch in the right hand. But, when the spoke about their appearance to western reporters, they didn't say: "I am dressed up like the 'statue of liberty'." They said, "I am dressed up like the 'goddess of democracy'." Presumably that was how "Statue of Liberty" is usually translated in China.

My experience, over at the wikipedia, with attempts by English speakers to deal with the non-English names for organizations, has made clear to me how problematic the translation of names can be. Certain organizations, through hard work, or having English language publicists, have escaped the problem of having their organizations' names randomly translated a bunch of different ways. But the vast majority of non-English names have multiple possible translations into English, and, on an International project we should be very sensitive to the flip-side of this for our users and contributors for whom English is not their first language. Let me offer some examples of some names of organizations counter-terrorism officials failed to realize were ambiguous:

The Uyghur captives in Guantanamo were all held in Guantanamo based on Chinese allegations that they were members of the terrorist East Turkestan Islamic Party. The troubles with this naming are that: (1) the name of this group was transliterated about a dozen different ways in the official US documents; (2) over the years the Uyghurs, an oppressed minority in China, who call their homeland "East Turkestan", face very similar problems to the Tibetans, but with no Dalai Lama. They have tried to organize dozens of liberation groups, most of which have had names that could be transliterated as "East Turkestan Islamic Party", or reasonable equivalent. These groups ranged in their belief in non-violence.
Khaled el-Masri who was tortured for five months in the salt pit is reported to have said on his application for German citizenship that he was a member of Zarqari's group. al Tawhid was the short form for Zarqari's group, prior to it being renamed "al Qaida in Iraq". It is also part of the name, in Arabic, of the Druze, a minority ethnic group in Lebanon, where el-Masri was immigrating from. Zarqari's group didn't even exist when el-Masri immigrated. Being part of a potentially oppressed minority ethnic group? That is something one would put on an application for asylum. Being a member of a terrorist group? This is a much less popular choice for immigration applicants.
A couple of dozen Guantanamo captives were held due to an alleged association with a charity called "al Wafa". Because the wikipedia is so frequently mirrored, if you google "al Wafa" now, you should find lots of links to the al Wafa charity the US put on its terrorist watchlist. But when I started the al Wafa article four years ago the only charities named "al Wafa" I could find were innocuous ones that had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
The story was similar for the "Afghan Support Group", or "Afghan Support Committee" -- an alleged association was used to justify holding captives in Guantanamo. I found that there were at least five different groups with names that transliterated into "Afghan Support Committee", in English. The dangerous one seems to have been the one that had originally been a CIA front, abandoned by the CIA once the Soviets were kicked out, which then found new sponsors in oil-rich Gulf. Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have read the comments above, and notwithstanding those support comments, I remain unconvinced. For the reasons already stated in some detail, the disambiguation is completely unnecessary. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I too have read the all the comments above and I also remain unconvinced and as such I think no change is needed. I agree withSkeezix1000 that "the disambiguation is completely unnecessary". --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 20:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both the move and the proposed choice of subcategory names if moved:
- Against the move: I believe the statue in New York Harbor is by far the most common meaning of the Statue of Liberty as the stadium in Rome is the Colosseum. Just as there is not much chance that Category:Colosseum would get confused with Category:Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (even though it's larger) or any of the other 37 categories with the word "Coliseum" in them or 3 more categories with "Colosseum" in them, there is not much chance that the English name "Statue of Liberty" by itself refers to anything other than the statue in New York Harbor unless context shows otherwise. It looks to me like most of the other statues with a similar name are only subjective translations from other languages, and that they have been translated as "Statue of Liberty" only because that is the most common combination of "liberty" and "statue" in English, which is because of the one in New York. (How many of those other statues have officially been referred to as "Statue of Liberty"? How many are only called that on Commons because of the tendency towards English names on Commons even when no English name really exists?) Further evidence that the New York statue is the primary subject is the large amount of Commons media related to it, demonstrated by the fairly well-populated subcategories.
- Against the proposed subcategory names: I assume those suggestions are simply examples, and not the literal names to be used. Nobody calls this statue "Liberty of New York" — that sounds like an insurance company or a car dealer or something. If they must be moved, maybe use "Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World" so at least it contains "Statue of Liberty", or maybe "American Statue of Liberty on <stamps, etc.>".
Someone mentioned that a non-English-speaking user, trying to translate their native liberty statue names into "Statue of Liberty", may have problems. But how many times does that happen, compared to how many times a non-English-speaking user really is looking for the statue in New York when they type "Statue of Liberty"? I could be wrong, but I suspect that even non-English-speaking people searching for "Statue of Liberty" usually are trying to find the New York statue. (That being said: All the other "Liberty" statues in the world certainly should have redirects for their native names, since that would cure a vast majority of ambiguity problems and remove the necessity for subjective translation. And the name for the American statue should have redirects from as many languages as possible, especially the ones where that statue has a specific common name in that other language.) --Closeapple (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I'm closing this discussion almost a year after it was started, with the last comment posted almost two months old. There is still no consensus that there should be a move/rename. It seems that the primary English meaning of "Statue of Liberty", and the one that is searched for the most under that name, is the one in New York. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Eivissa

This category has been renamed without consensus by multichill as you can see in Category talk:Eivissa. My last contribution in this discussion has kept there unanswered. Furthermore, I think there was nearly a consensus of keeping the former name (Six people defended it and only two claimed for category change).

Also all subcategories have been renamed without any advise.

I won't repeat my line of argument here for reverting Multichill changes as you can read them in Category talk:Eivissa.

Thanks, Paucabot (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleting redirects is not helpful. Multichill (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need to repeat the discussion of Category talk:Eivissa. The "Ibiza" name is "the" reference name in reference works and scholar books. --Foroa (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the unfinished discussion and non-consensus renaming? Paucabot (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a server and has to serve the wikipedias. So far, as can be seen in the IW's, the large majority of the wikipedias are referring to Category:Ibiza. If you want a transition to Eivissa, you have to start on the side of our clients. We can discuss the issue again when w:Ibiza gets renamed. --Foroa (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Commons is an independent project with its own admins and users and is able to take its own decisions. If some wikipedias have different policies, I respect it, but here we can think by ourselves. Paucabot (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly what we're doing. We're using the most commons name in English and that happens to be Ibiza and not Eivissa. Multichill (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking by yourself ignoring an open discussion and moving a category without consensus. Paucabot (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment user:Paucabot seems to be canvasing {{User ca}} users. Multichill (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I have not noticed it. --V.Riullop (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here. Multichill (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it because of a non-consensus edition of Multichill. In normal cases, I would not have made it. Multichill has not yet explained why did he do all this category movements without consensus. Paucabot (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ibiza is a case that is comparable to Rome, Brussels, Cologne, The Hague, Florence, ... It is not a matter of voting but applying the Commons naming rules. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Ibiza/Eivissa is a case exactly as Pekin/Beijing or Burma/Myanmar. And you can see the policy in Category:Beijing and Category:Myanmar. Paucabot (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the interwiki's and you will see the difference. --Foroa (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had not we agreed in take our own decisions? Paucabot (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support to move to its original category (Eivissa). There's no complex characters avoiding an normal use of "Eivissa", as it's the real name of the place as the exemples shown by Pau Cabot. There's also Sevilla and not Seville, Granada and not Granade or Mallorca and not Majorca here in Commons. Maintaining it would be a Francoist mind. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I am sure that Hitler and Stalin would have used Ibiza too. I don't like exonyms, but we have to serve our audience. I would say, as in Mumbai, Myanmar and Beijing, if Eivissa gets around 50 % of the interwiki names, then Eivissa will be the name to use. --Foroa (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move, the only reason to use "English" names is the lack of education in certain countries. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, give the good example. Rename nl:Ibiza (eiland). --Foroa (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocked on nl.wikipedia (as a "sock puppet" of nl:gebruiker:ErikWarmelink). Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the main account is blocked for a year because of personal attacks. We're in good company here ;-) Multichill (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't threaten your father, pseudonym. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Paucabot's comments. Do we use Beijing instead of Pekin? Then we should user Eivissa too.--Xtv (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ibiza is far more used than Eivissa so we use Ibiza. That might seem unfair to some but is best for most of the users. Note we use Beijing and not 北京市 even if that might seem more correct to some users. --MGA73 (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cricket players

Per an unanswered comment on the talk page, the descriptor "Cricket players" is inaccurate. Those who play cricket are always referred to as "Cricketers" and never as "Cricket Players". A Google comparison of the two terms is roughly 10:1 favouring the single word. For certain other sports such as football its 50:50 and for basketball it swings the other direction (10:1) supporting the status quo. Category:Australian rules footballers is uncontroversial. For precedent, refer w:Category:Cricketers.

Proposal: Category:Cricket players → Category:Cricketers (and the subcats by country/gender). Moondyne (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

w:WT:CRIC notified. Moondyne (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename per nomination. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 03:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support YellowMonkey (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The term "cricket player" is simply not in use. The term "cricketer" can be traced back to the 18th century and is first known in connection with a hanged felon who played cricket in Kent. Cricketer has had continuous usage ever since. --BlackJack (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone so far. SGGH (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty straightforward to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. (This can be done by a bot, right?) Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Bigforrap (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with a unanimous decision to move. I'll see if User:CommonsDelinker will do the dirty work. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Region of Auckland

The 16 New Zealand regions have legal names Foo Region, rather than Region of Foo. (Local Government Act 2002) I'd like to change to Foo Region, for the correct legal title, and to align with Wikipedia. --Benchill (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's appropriate. The only reason I'm feeling a bit reluctant is that I've gotten used to the setup. But go ahead. Ingolfson (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the inconvenience. Benchill (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Foo Region is more correct. Although "Region" is technically not correct for the 4 unitary authorities (Gisborne, Tasman, Nelson, and Marlborough), I think it's best to keep our naming internally consistent. --Avenue (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming them. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 04:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The three first ones were renamed

Will do the other ones this morning, cheers. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 04:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move, Gisborne appears to be complete also. I've added the remainder to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, for the bot to process. Benchill (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it will take some time, so I'm completing the job ;) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 15:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of them

Done! --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for processing this request. You might like to consider giving the bot a command to take care of future category moves. Benchill (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as resolved. Rocket000 (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Alter Dom Mariä Himmelfahrt (Linz)

Wrong category name ("Mariä Himmelfahrt" is wrong), the corrected category is Category:Alter Dom (Linz). This category should be deleted. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, already deleted. --rimshot^talk 15:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Photos misused as evidence of Nanjing Massacre

Resolved

This category appears to be part of an insiduous campaign by Japanese denialists of the Nanking massacre. Most of the images are actually used in articles which present them as scenes from the Nanking massacre without qualification. By allowing this category to exist Commons is effectively making the statement that all these articles are mistaken, or worse, deliberately misleading. This is a way of making a political point without the inconvenience of having to find reliable sources as Wikipedia would demand. SpinningSpark 06:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category's name is totally unacceptable, for the reasons given above. A category name which clearly expresses an opinion on an historical event, no matter whether it is orthodox or controversialist as here, gives the impression that Wikimedia supports that view. This and any similar categories needs to be deleted as soon as possible. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the images back to the original Category: Nanjing Massacre so this category is currently empty. SpinningSpark 06:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category and moved some photos there because these photos are not related to Nanking Massacre. As a native Nanjinese, I'm surely not a denialist. You have to admit that some photos used as illustration of the massacre happened somewhere else. I suggest move these photos to a category such as War crimes commited by Japanese Army in China, but please do not move them back to category:Nanjing Massacre. --MtBell (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the situation. I'm not in a position to judge whether the photos concerned belong in the Nanjing Massacre category or not, but if you can show that they don't belong there then by all means move them to the more general *War crimes... category, or perhaps another, more specific one if the location[s] are known. Either way, the category *Photos misused as evidence of Nanjing Massacre needs deleting. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved these photos to some general categories. --MtBell (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this category per the above discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The files have been moved and the category has been deleted. --rimshot^talk 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:University of Eastern Michigan faculty

Category is misnamed, and the correctly-named category (Category:Eastern Michigan University faculty) already exists. I've moved the single image from this category to the correct one, so it is now empty. --cmadler (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I make a suggestion. This may benefit from a {{Category redirect|Category:Eastern Michigan University faculty}} tag instead of a delete. However thi is just a comment.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's a more appropriate outcome, I'm fine with that. I don't do much editing on Commons, more on English Wikipedia, and I know that norms for deletion versus redirect can be different. My thought was that "University of X" and "X University" are not necessarily the same (the best known US example is probably Miami University, which is in Ohio near the Miami River, and the University of Miami, which is in Miami, Florida; another example is Findlay University, which changed the name to University of Findlay to avoid the abbreviation FU), and in this case, there has never been such a thing as the University of Eastern Michigan, only Eastern Michigan University. But if the norm at Commons leans more to redirecting incorrectly-named categories rather than deleting, that's fine with me, I just thought it should be cleaned up somehow! Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FU) Funny. To be honest, I don't know what the norms for deletion versus redirect is either. I was just thinking that (Category:University of Eastern Michigan) vs (Category:Eastern Michigan University) might be a common mistake. However, I don't know that it is. I think you should do what ever you think is best since you know more about the subject. However, I agree that the way it is now is WRONG.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete. In the U.S., FOO University and University of FOO are simply not interchangeable. Besides the aforementioned Miami case, consider University of Washington (Seattle and other locations in Washington State) and Washington University (St. Louis, Missouri), not to mention Washington State University (Pullman and other locations in Washington State). - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as resolved. Category was deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category renames for quick review - Round 1: Meta categories

During my work with categories I come across a lot of non-standard, inconsistent, grammatically incorrect, misspelled, or wrongly capitalized names. I normally try to deal with them when I encounter them, however, a lot of the time I discover them while doing some other category maintenance task and can't be bothered to keep making rename requests or bot commands, so instead I keep a list of them to get to when I have time. Since I'm perfectly aware I'm not perfect and I'm not 100% sure on some of them, I'm going to be submitting portions, like this, of my ever-growing list occasionally for review by others before I perform the moves. I don't think any of these really need discussion, I would just a few others to quickly review them. As I don't think any of these are controversial, I'll probably only wait a week or so (unless arguments are raised). Of course, you're welcome to make any of the moves yourself. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plural to singular

Works by millennia → Works by millennium
History of Bulgaria by events → History of Bulgaria by event
Zoos by animals → Zoos by type of animal (the plural is technically correct because it's talking about groups of animals not individual ones, however I think it's clearer to always express these "by xxx" criteria in the singular and "type" is singular)
Birds at Jurong Bird Park by taxa → Birds at Jurong Bird Park by taxon (I'm not sure "taxon" is even correct because it uses common-name groups which may or may not mean the same as scientifically defined groups, for example, "birds of prey" probably doesn't)
Loaders by manufacturers → Loaders by manufacturer
Schools in Lima by districts → Schools in Lima by district
Screenshots by video games → Screenshots by video game
Dinosaurs by genera → Dinosaurs by genus or Dinosauria by genus (since it's a taxon category) or Genera of Dinosauria (preferred as it's not really a meta-category)
Churches in Lithuania by districts → Churches in Lithuania by district
Tel Aviv-Yaffo by streets → Tel Aviv-Yaffo by street
Tel Aviv-Yaffo by Neighborhoods → Tel Aviv-Yaffo by neighborhood
Coats of arms by tinctures → Coats of arms by tincture
Statues in Japan by prefectures → Statues in Japan by prefecture
History of Belarus by city and villages → History of Belarus by city or village or History of Belarus by city

Spelling errors

Buildings in Katowice by disctrict → Buildings in Katowice by district
Parliamentarians by Political party → Parliamentarians by political party
Events in France by departement → Events in France by department (department is département in French but "departement" is not a English word)
Ancient Roman sites in France by departement → Ancient Roman sites in France by department
Loire River by departement → Loire River by department or Loire River in France by department
Buses in Midi-Pyrénées by departement → Buses in Midi-Pyrénées by department

Incorrect capitalization

Awkward and poorly formed

Bird anatomy (general), by component → merge → Bird anatomy (put these back in the main cat as they form the main (and only) type of subdivision of it; see also this CFD for equally crappy names)
Cities and towns of Québec, by administrative region → Cities and towns of Quebec by administrative region (random comma, non-English name, should match Quebec)
Cities and towns of Québec, by regional county municipality (RCM) → Cities and towns of Quebec by regional county municipality (RCM) (random comma, non-English name, not sure if "(RCM)" is needed.)
Plaques in Saint Petersburg by organisation/company → Plaques in Saint Petersburg by organization or company or Plaques in Saint Petersburg by organization (companies are a type of organization, organization with a "z" is by far more common)
Computer graphics by software → merge → Images by software used (it's redundant—"by software used" implies "computer graphics", without the "used" part it's ambiguous)
Images from Wikis Take Manhattan by participant/team → Images from Wikis Take Manhattan by participant or team

- Rocket000 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rocket000 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Burley Wharfdale railway station

Reasons for discussion request -- Wrong spelling for station name. Category created with correct spelling (Burley in Wharfedale railway station) and images moved. Next time I'll request a category move. Scillystuff (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty anyway --Foroa (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, misspelled. --rimshot^talk 14:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Company Gardens

Should be moved to Category:Company's Garden, as that is the usual way of writing the name; see e.g. [14][15]. --Htonl (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good idea. A quick search over books in archive.org confirms that "Company's Gardens" is the more common spelling. I origionally create the category using the spelling from the en article name, but I see you have already moved that article to the new name. --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, moved to Category:Company's Garden, as this seems to be the official name. --rimshot^talk 14:01, 14 August 2010 (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.

Category:SVG_Location_maps_categories

Redundant with Category:Location maps by country. (I'm not sure why "SVG" is in the title, none of the subcategories are SVG-specific.) Rocket000 (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is a need for SVG maps.

However I agree, all the files and subcategories need to be SVG specific. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.244.98.245 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but this category is not it. Rocket000 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nuke it. Multichill (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Move to Category:Location maps by country where they belong. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Location maps by country Only waiting for Delinker to delete. --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:ARD-Rose

typo (correct is Category:ADR-Rose) --Anna reg (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 30 August 2010 by Foroa (talk · contribs). AusTerrapin (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Documents from the Den of Espionage

This is a pejorative title, it ought to be Category:Documents from the U.S. Embassy, Tehran per en:U.S. Embassy, Tehran. --Benchill (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benchill is right, category should be moved to Category:Documents from the U.S. Embassy, Tehran. --High Contrast (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --rimshot^talk 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:2006, stamps on envelores

"Envelores" is not an English word. Could be a typo for "envelopes", except none of these are visibly on envelopes. Subcat of Category:Stamps of Moldova, 2006, Category:Stamps of Moldova, so apparently the intent is something specific to Moldova. I have no idea whether there is a valid category here, but clearly if there is it is misnamed. -- Jmabel ! talk 07:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the whole Category:Stamps of Moldova tree is seen as a traditional file directory system and a mess, for example none of the categories in Category:Stamps of Moldova, 2006 have an acceptable name. --Foroa (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these are envelopes with stamps printed on them. Stamps on envelopes doesn't quite cover that, of course, much less envelores. The proper name for this kind of thing is postal stationery. We have a category for that. I would propose the following categories:

Category:Postal stationery

Category:Postal stationery of Moldova

Category:2006, stamps on envelores would be renamed to Category:Postal stationery of Moldova, 2006. 2002, postal stamps and so on can be upmerged to Stamps of Moldova, 2002. The information that these stamps are "according to" this or the other catalog should be on the description page. I'm not quite sure what "according to" is supposed to mean in this context. Were they scanned from the catalog or were they verified to be genuine, with the help of the catalog? --rimshot^talk 13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Postal stationery", assuming it is factually correct, sounds good to me. I've circled back once more (this time in Romanian) to the person who created this category, hoping he/she will weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any issue with putting the year first instead of last in the category? E.g. 2006 stamps of Moldova, following the parent Category:2006 stamps. BrokenSphere (Talk) 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date is a qualifier, not a topic as such. If we start categorising like that, the real date related categories will be overwhelmed by those types of categories. --Foroa (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed as discussed --moogsi (blah) 21:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Thai Airways

Title is ambiguous per en:Thai Airways, it ought to be Category:Thai Airways International per the en Wikipedia article name. --Benchill (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A {{move}} request might be more efficient for such obvious cases. --Foroa (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed since it has already been turned into a disambiguation. ghouston (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Road signs by shape

Should we use this category or just direct users to Category:Signs by shape? Personally, I think we should provide a way to search road signs by shape, but this could also be done by using "Signs by shape" together with some of the other subcategories of "road signs". -- Docu at 20:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, it is reasonable and relevant to have such special subcategory in the category Signs by shape. There exist no many used shapes and very many road signs using them. --ŠJů (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for me. How shall we structure the subcategories? In some countries, some categories of signs have generally a specific shape (e.g. warning signs, prohibitory signs, etc.), but I think it's generally preferable to make all categories for specific signs with a defined form direct subcategories of the one of a shape (e.g. Category:Red octagonal stop signs would be a subcategory of "Octagonal signs"). This avoids tendency to find subcategories with signs of a different form. -- Docu

If a whole subcategory from some country contains signs of identical shape, it can be en bloc categorized by shape, e. g.

Prohibitory traffic signs in the Czech Republic → Round prohibitory traffic signs → Round road signs, and possibly paralelly
Prohibitory traffic signs in the Czech Republic → Round traffic signs in the Czech Republic → Round road signs

If the group isn't homogenic (like this one], it will not be categorized by shape en bloc, but it can have subcategories by shape (a square on its side, a square on the top, a rectangle) or in some similar way. Paralelly, signs can be categorized by meaning, e. g.:

Zeichen 209 → Round turn signs in Germany (or only Turn signs in Germany) → Round mandatory signs in Germany → Round mandatory traffic signs → Round road signs), and paralelly
Zeichen 209 → Round turn signs in Germany (or only Turn signs in Germany) → Round turn signs → Round mandatory traffic signs → Round road signs)

As we can see, category branches are interlacing on every level so much as possible. There's no need to invent some rigid scheme, every country have some local specifics of grouping and shapes. It is sufficient to respect general rules of categorization (to avoid useless overcategorization) but i see no special problem on this theme. If we will do so, the ideal grouping and structure should happen with time "of itself". Shapes are very simple criterion.

I think, there exist more complicated problems, e. g. that "mandatory" or "prohibitory" or "operational" signs etc. are defined in every country a bit different - not only worldwide but even within Geneva and Vienna conventions area. For example Slovakia moved signs of traffic lanes from "informational" signs to "mandatory" signs in 2009. It is random whether e. g. "Stop at customs" is clasified as a prohibitory sign or as a mandatory one. --ŠJů (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with your scheme when it includes "round" in the intermediary categories, but if the category name doesn't include that, it tends to get problematic.

I'm aware of the added problems with terms like "prohibitory" and signs like "Stop at customs" that might mean "slow down, but don't necessarily stop", but let's try to get simpler things sorted out first. BTW, I have a personal preference for signs that aren't identical everywhere. Docu at 20:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the category will not contain an explicite shape definition, we can somethink presume only if such category contains a complete set of diagrams. (But even in such cases situation can become difficult because of some historic signs or a photo of some unstandardized sign like this warning sign can occure.) It depends whether such exception remain be a rarity or become to be more remarkable. As I said, we needn't to invent some scheme, it is sufficient to use standard common rules of categorization and standard maintenance. I agree that we would first try to assemble and group signs by kind and meaning. Many diagrams are not categorized by meaning yet, many countries haven't uploaded a complete set of diagrams, many meanings of signs have not their own specific category etc. --ŠJů (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably described quite well the point at which the subcategories without an explicit shape definition become problematic. As currently it's a bit hard to find anything, I rather outline this in advance to avoid that this becomes an issue later. There is nothing really being invented, but we still need to have some sort of category description to go by. This will make standard maintenance easier. Docu at 04:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also support retention of the category. As there has been no further discussion recently, and because there is no consensus to deleted this, I have also removed the tag on the original category. Ingolfson (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as per Ingolfson. ghouston (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech language in Písek District and some related categories

Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech language in Písek District
Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech language in South Bohemian Region
Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech language in the Czech Republic by region
Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech language
(the category Category:Memorial plaques by language was deleted by Foroa on 06:05, 18 August 2010)

All those 5 newly created categories contained only one image (in the first one) still - File:Čížová, pamětní deska včelařského spolku.JPG.

1) Recently several categories "Memorial plaques..." was deleted or redirected to "Plaques..." because the main category Category:Plaques is described as intended for "memorial signs", i. e. the adjective "memorial" is uselessly tautologic and tempting to duplicities. (Also Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech Republic is requested to merge with Category:Plaques in the Czech Republic now.)

2) It is question whether is reasonable to create so particular combined categories. Isn't inadequate to create categories combining more criteria (geographical, language and type of object) on so low level (district) and for so few files? Is it reasonable to anticipate that the existing content will be methodically assorted by somebody in this way?

3) Now, the category Category:Plaques has no subcategories "by language" and the category Category:Plaques in the Czech Republic is geographicaly divided by region only. Isn't categorization "by language" duplicite to categorization "by country" for plaques which use only the local official language? Is it a good impulse for mass creation and filling of such categories? --ŠJů (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See related discussion Category talk:Plaques that we should probably integrate in the discussion on Category:Memorial tablets: 1) A quick first part of a reply. We removed the "memorial plaques by country" structure, although in principe this could be a more precise subcategory of plaques. Problem is that the majority of the current contents in plaques are en:Commemorative plaques and even memorial plaques (event related). There are a smaller number of plaques that are more informational, in the sense "Napoleon lived here", this is such or such famous building, classified historical building, maintained by the city, designed by xxx .... So, with the volumes we do have and the categorisation style here, it might make more sense to say that by default, all plaques are memorial plaques, and a subcategory splits up the informational or non memorial plaques.; 2) It is often a mistake to assume that the natural "geographic" subcategorisation has to be reflected on all side categories: this brings no added value in finding things, to the contrary. It is often used only to keep the volume of a certain category to something manageable.; 3)For the rest, I have to think and look around, but for each "side-"categorisation on Commons, two basic questions have to be asked: does the category add significant value (will it be really used and helpful to find something) and is it natural to categorise in it (in other words, will those categories be maintained or stay empty as most "by name" categories). --Foroa (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ad 3) See as example Category:Inscriptions in the Czech Republic by language. It is interesting to segregate foreign-language inscriptions in some country to special subcategories. But a filling of the category Category:Czech inscriptions in the Czech Republic seems to be unwieldy. Plaques are similar in this view. It is useful to separate German, Russian, Latin, Italian etc. plaques in the Czech Republic. But because most of plaques in the Czech Republic are in Czech language, such subcategory by language would be unmanageable and a bitt useles. --ŠJů (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3) Agree. All plaques are by default in the national language. And frankly, even in Belgium with its 3 official + English languages, I don't feel a need to make separate subcats for it. --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Memorial tablets

There seems to be an agreement (=no protest) with ... to move here all the contents from Category:Memorial tablets (and subcats) to related Category:Plaques (and subcats). --Foroa (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, there is no separate Memorial plaques category, for now. ghouston (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church- evangelic (Karlovy Vary)

delete. Evangelich churches has no dedication. And for buildings we are using the name of the more recent use. So this would be Evangelic church in Karlovy Vary, if there is just one envangelic church in the city. --Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(A moving to Category:Protestant church of Saints Peter and Paul in Karlovy Vary was requested even before this deletion request.)

Keep, consider the rename request preceding this delete request. The church really exists and is remarkable, then deletion request cannot be considered as serious. The most used name is:

Evangelický kostel sv. Petra a Pavla v Karlových Varech
Evangelický kostel sv. Petra a Pavla
Husitský kostel sv. Petra a Pavla
Husitský kostel Petra a Pavla
even the current owner (Czechoslovak Hussite Church), called it kostel sv. Petra a Pavla

When we try evangelický kostel karlovy vary in Google, every relevant finding contains also names of patron saints "Petra a Pavla". As we can read from the history of this church, it was built in 1852 by Lutheran countess Schaumburg-Lippe as an oratory for all non-Catholic spa guests. Thus, the church never was Catholic but ever had its dedication - formerly as Lutheran only to St Peter, since 1946 Czechoslovak Church extended the patrocinium to St Paul. Then Juan's deduction is surely based on some fatal mistake.

I requested a word "protestant" instead "evangelic" or "Hussite" because the church is known as "evangelic" but used by Czechoslovak Hussite Church, not by Evangelic Church of Czech Brethern. --ŠJů (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, since it has already been renamed. ghouston (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Studentenverbindungen

The term Studentenverbindungen is a term of art referring to student fraternities in German-speaking communities. However, I notice that some categories have been created using the term "Student fraternities in ..." instead. Note that the English Wikipedia article states that Studentenverbindungen are similar but not identical to American college fraternities, so some confusion might be caused if we call them "student fraternities". Should we retain the term Studentenverbindungen, or translate it to "Student fraternities" in line with "Commons:Language policy"? I am fine either way, so long as we use either the German term or its English translation consistently. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the German term! Studentenverbindungen are considerably different from American fraternities. The English Wikipedia and many others use the German term to name the corresponding articles: en:Studentenverbindung, es:Studentenverbindung. See also similar subjects, like en:Burschenschaft, etc. --ALE! ¿…? 09:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better stick with the German word, it is really different from American student fraternities. Nageh (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for keeping the German term, which indeed defines a historic and current association and type of student's organisation which has significant differences from what would be a fraternity in the US, or the UK equivalents. They can be a subcategory under the broader term of student organizations. Ingolfson (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we have consensus that the German term should be retained as it has a specific meaning that is not properly captured by any English term. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The categories in question such as "Category:Student fraternities in St. Gallen" have been renamed in the format "Category:Studentenverbindungen in St. Gallen". Thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion. I think it can now be closed by an administrator. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether German or English versions of place names should be used

A related issue is whether German or English versions of place names should be used, for places with well-established English names:

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no problem with this. --ALE! ¿…? 12:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, do you mean that you think it is all right to rename the categories so that the English versions of the city names are used? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but please put category redirects, e.g. in Category:Studentenverbindungen in München put {{Category redirect|Studentenverbindungen in Munich}}. --ALE! ¿…? 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that will be done automatically once the categories are renamed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - for consistency, the English-style names (Munich, instead of Muenchen) should be used. Ingolfson (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny: first part of the cat name in German, second in English. With that logic, a lot of cats will need renaming. 498 in Köln to start with --Foroa (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Da gibt es sicher einiges nettes in Germish wie:

„English: This is the category for Hannover, capital of Lower Saxony, Germany. Hanover is the English spelling of the city's name.“

Finde ich zumindest auch auch ganz selbstbewusst.--Kresspahl (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an existing policy on the use of non-English place names? In other words, are commonly used English names for places to be preferred over the place names in their original languages? Does the language policy apply here? Anyway, we should not have two categories like "Category:Köln" and "Category:Cologne" existing at the same time, as this just splits up related files. (Or, we end up with two categories with identical files, which is a little strange.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we should not have "koeln", we should take our lead from the English Wikipedia in these matters. In the long run, capability for multi-lingual cat names will eventually happen (however, this is trickier done than said, which is why it still hasn't occured). Ingolfson (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, consensus was to keep the German name. ghouston (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:AOMC

I found a new type of flat meta category. It says "AOMC means ALL Old Maps Categories". It uses the word "all" like suggested before, but that wasn't seen as being all that clear, thus I didn't simply rename this to "Category:All categories of old maps". The category is populated by a template so it will be easy to rename it. Rocket000 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No support for move, and it's a hidden tracking category. No action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Months by country

To recycle Martin H's words: A new brainless meta categorization system for the purpose of collecting unrelated categories in one category with no informational value. Occupational therapy and overdoing Commons with unecessary category mess. Multichill (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. Docu at 04:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having tolied a lot in the date related categories, I feel that this meta category (and all the related subcats) is neither brainless, nor useless. I think its a good overlay bringing together disparate categories or files. Evrik (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To recycle someone else's words: "Come on, what's the point of these categories?" Seriously, I really don't understand how this is useful categorization. I'm ok with seasons by country, maybe even months by country (that's pushing it), but month and year by country? Why? To bring together "disparate categories or files"? That could mean anything—"a grouping of unrelated files". Categories are meant to separate disparate (synonym: separate) categories or files, right? Rocket000 (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone point me to an example where these categories are deemed really useful ? --Foroa (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consideration should be made to making these hidden categories, like user categories. One example of usefulness - I went to Eritrea in October/November 2008, and would be interested to know if anyone else on the tour has also uploaded photos. A quick check of Category:October 2008 in Eritrea and Category:November 2008 in Eritrea shows that I'm the only one (or if there are others they're not in this cat). It's a category that's more useful to the uploader than the casual browser, which is why I suggest using hiddencat. Tivedshambo (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The categories Category:October 2008 in Eritrea etc are not for discussion. For discussion is Category:October in Eritrea respectively Category:Eritrea in October (the category mess wasnt even consistent in its naming) as a parent category collecting categories of content created in or about eritrea in October of random years to build a connection with the topic category October. --Martin H. (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I took the nomination to include all subcategories, down to the [month] [year] in [country] level. Tivedshambo (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he nominated just Category:Months by country. Docu at 10:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the meta categry system of months by country, including of course what the name says: months by country categories, thats MonthX in CountryX. I illustrated it in File:Month by country CfD.png. --Martin H. (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tivedshambo didn't seem to see it that way either and the nomination just mentions "in one category". Besides, only one category is tagged with {{Cfd}} and the image you mention was created just now. Docu at 02:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was created right now, it only reflects your list of the meta categorization system at COM:UNDEL#Country by month categories with an example of one of the unecessary categories beeing recreated. --Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent reset)Special:Contributions/Saviour1981 keep coming back. --Foroa (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thats not what this is about. The last category in your contribs link created is Category:December 2010 by country, we not talk about that category (which is an appropriate "by topic" category for Category:December 2010) but we talk about either Category:December by country or Category:Countries in December or so which collects all Category:December 2010 by country & Category:December 2009 by country & 2008 ... in one category. Thats unecessary meta categorization and irrelevant "by topic" categorization for the topic Category:December as well as unecessary duplication of all photographic content into the topic category tree Category:Months. --Martin H. (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Multichill.--Avron (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please change all the names in the standard form "Name of country by month" or delete all these categories! Thank you! --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Former players of Real Madrid CF

Is there really a need to distinguish players who used to play for Real Madrid vs. who is on the current squad? This category seems extraenous. --BrokenSphere (Talk) 04:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, such categories shouldn't exist. If a player plays for another club, say ABC Club (hence former Real), simply add it to both categories; current Real and ABC. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :
There is the players who play for another club and the players who stop to play.

When there is two or more categories Players of on a file/page, how do we know wich one is the current one ?

In the category Players of, how do we know wich players are currently in the team ?

Finally, there others cat. Former players … : Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Former players. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless category as well as any category as former xxx of xxx. We don't need to know what is the current club, we are categorizing players on the club they played for. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIn the context of the player Arjen Robben, it was pointed to me that "A photo showing a player of Bayern Munich in a match against Chelsea has nothing to do with Real Madrid. The consequence of this categorization is blowing up the category system of soccer clubs with unrelated media files", and after that I created this category without thinking consciously about it. Doing that was a mistake, but I also agree with Martin H: a category must contain images and subcategories related to the subject, so the current approach doesn't seem to be a good one. That's why I created Category:Players of FC Barcelona by season later. Lobo (howl?) 18:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Zeichen 206

This should be renamed to something else. -- Docu at 13:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What name do you suggest? This name is chosen according to other subcats of Category:Road signs in Germany. --MB-one (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. Maybe "Zeichen 206 (road sign in Germany)"? Docu at 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the cfd tag to all other categories with names in the form "Zeichen nnn". BTW all but two of them were created by you. Docu at 15:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use the name of signs rather than only the number of signs. What about to let's inspire with filenames like File:CZ-IS12b Konec obce.jpg? Country, number and name (meaning) should be specified. Btw., what is more stable and long-time: a numbering or a meaning and shape of signs? --ŠJů (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK to have signs categorised according to their native designation, but they should also be categorised within Category:Road signs by kind to enable users of other languages to find them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, this is the official classification, the only "other part" of the official classification being in German, thus adding that as more text to the category doesn't help the general user - while using English ad-hoc translations of the German remainder of the full name is also not ideal. Therefore I think that a "Zeichen XXX" category is not the worst idea - but maybe a "Road signs of Germany, Zeichen XXX" category would be best? Ingolfson (talk)

Apparently I didn't explain myself sufficiently. I was not suggesting to add any more descriptive text to the category name, but that road signs should not only be categorised by the native designation number (as has happened at Verkehrsschild (D) - Achtung! unebener Plattenbelag Frotschäden.JPG), but also by existing descriptive categories, e.g. from Category:Road signs by kind.

~~Using a naming scheme "Road signs of Germany, Zeichen XXX" seems sensible to me.~~ -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A category name isn't a category scheme. A category name should be suitable pregnant and unequivocal but shouldn't contain all parent-category names. --ŠJů (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the word "Zeichen" (= a sign) isn't an inseparable and untranslatable part of the "official name" or number of individual signs but it is only a common word and a common way of sign numbering (see e. g. de:Bildtafel der Verkehrszeichen in Deutschland). Whatever kind of signs can be numbered such way, not only traffic signs - there are many other topics where are used signs which can be numbered.

The proposed schema "Road signs of Germany, Zeichen XXX" don't conform to standard syntax of category names. A dissambiguation should be rather on the bottom of the category name, if it is necessary. But also a parallel use of the German word "Zeichen" and an English word "signs" is redundant. Is it some relevant reason to not translate "Zeichen" by the English word "sign"? What about Category:Traffic sign 206 (Germany) or Category:Traffic sign 206 of Germany? (I'm not sure if singular or plural is more suitable for multiple use of one sign symbol.) (also a term "road sign" can be used instead of "traffic sign")

Lastly, I'm repeating my question: what is more stable and long-time (and pregnant): a numbering or a meaning and shape of signs? --ŠJů (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some time after writing the above, the same thought about redundant category naming occurred to me; after all, the categories "Zeichen xxx" are already part of the Category:Road signs in Germany, so there is no need to repeat that term. I'm not sure the category name "Zeichen xxx" needs to be renamed at all. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What is more stable?" IMO a system that uses the official German numbering. (I'm not sure what you mean by "pregnant".) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First: It is a goal, to categorise all "Zeichen XXX" cats in the specific subcats of Road signs by kind. 2. The numbering is clear without ambiguity, but I must admit that "Zeichen" isn't. So, what about "German road sign XXX" or "German traffic sign XXX"? --MB-one (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Bednarek: In some countries, the system of traffic sings itself (shapes and meanings of signs) is developing and changing gently and continuously but the numbering is time after time changed with one whack. It can be told that almost every new editon of an enactment comes with a new numbering. In my country (Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic), I experienced no less than 4 different numberings (1967, 1975, 1990, 2001). I suppose, DDR had also different numbering than BRD. Also Slovakian have a problem that their sign diagram files are named only by numbers - and in 2009 were nearly all signs renumbered. --ŠJů (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Bednarek: You are right that the categories "Zeichen xxx" are already part of the Category:Road signs in Germany. But wiki categorization isn't only hierarchic. It isn't possible to have one category "Zeichen xxx" ine the category Category:Road signs in Germany and other different category "Zeichen xxx" in an other theme. That's why every category name should be appropriately apposite and presentive also out of context of its parent category, when it is used by HotCat or within fulltext search results etc. --ŠJů (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar categorization system with Category:MUTCD categories.

To some extent, this includes a geographic scope, as does "Zeichen nnn"
These categories are used somewhat inconsistently (more in some fields than in others. Personally I tried to fill Category:W14-1 - Dead End and Category:W14-2 - No Outlet.
Their names are a bit more descriptive
Some signs might seem to look like just like the one described in the standard, but - due to a slightly variation - they don't belong there.
For, e.g. Category:Red octagonal stop signs, it seems just as important to categorized these by the language of the text they include than by the MUTCD category.

In any case, I think we should try to provide several alternative ways to categorize road signs, e.g. (form, color, meaning, content, location, standard). Given the complexity of the current system, maybe we should try to avoid placing too many intermediate levels between the images and avoiding to combining too many approaches (e.g. mix "by location" with every other one). Possibly, at least one category on the images should be as descriptive as Category:Red octagonal stop signs. --- Docu at 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody doubt that road signs should be categorized both by local standard (e. g. MUTCD for US, local numberings or names for other countries) and by general meaning (Road signs by kind). But there exist several questions. How category names should be used on the country level (to be not confusable with a general or a different meaning) and how the main general categories should be structured (whehter by European (Geneva) way or rather by US MUTCD way etc.). History and conception of road signing is a bit different. Categorization by colours, shapes etc. is an other view. It is routine that the categorization combines more criteria which are mutually more or less depending or independent. A problem of a single numbering also is that in some countries the numbers are not perpetual but only single-used in one enactment. Can we suppose that Germany will not renumber the signs? Such renumbering is quite often and in many countries. --ŠJů (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The German numbering system is part of their legislation (StVO) which was originally enacted in 1934; the most recent change to that legislation in September 2009 introduced some new signs and deprecated (until 2019) some others. Without disrespect to other countries, I think we can assume that the Germans will administer their legal system in a consistent and efficient manner; they have so far.

As to the actual naming proposal: Category:Traffic sign 206 of Germany (as proposed above) seems inconsistent with the fact that: a) Category:Traffic sign does not exist; and b) Category:Traffic signs points to Category:Road signs. Applying the naming conventions in Category:Road signs in Germany, it seems that Category:Zeichen 206 road signs in Germany would be a sensible name. Additionally, as Docu has pointed out, a new parent category, analogous to Category:MUTCD categories, for all these "Zeichen" categories might be useful, maybe named Category:StVO categories in the category Category:Road signs by standard. Then again, I still think that doing nothing is also a viable option at this point. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "traffic signs" and "road signs" are used alternatively on Commons on different levels and countries. The first one have a disadvantage that can be confusable with signs for other traffic (rail traffic, or a traffic other than a transportation). The second one is often confused with "road number signs" which are on Commons mostly called "Route signs". The article on the English Wikipedia has a name en:Traffic sign. Category:Zeichen 206 road signs in Germany is perhaps the least acceptable pattern of the all disscused, it breaks all common language and syntactic standards: it needlessly repeats a synonym in two languages and also the de facto dissambiguation without brackets is strange. The word "Zeichen" isn't a part of the code but a common word; what about to rename Category:Railway line 170 (Czech Republic) to Category:Trať 170 railway lines in the Czech Republic, or Category:St. Vitus Cathedral to Category:Katedrála svatého Víta churches in the Czech Republic? It would be a nonsense.

I believe that German legal system is administered in a consistent and efficient manner. But this fact doesn't need to mean that numbers of paragraphs or illustrative images will never change. Really didn't the numbering change since 1934? Unbelievable! Have you a link to the version StVO from 1934? Number of sign types increased surely manifold. If the authors of enactment from 1934 thought so far ahead that the original numbers never did have to be changed, then hats off, congratulatings! The first 6 Czechoslovakian signs from 1935 wasn't numbered; images of sings from 1938 was numbered by a single succession from 1 till 12 (some with variants a, b, c...), without a reserve for potential future signs. Just as illustrative images in every other enactment. Also the national flag or coat of arms are hardly somewhere called the image number from the constitution :-)

Category:Road signs by standard is a bitt needless and unclear category. Every country has its own standard, then "by country" category is herewith "by standard" category. Every standard has its own structure, although perpetual number codes are not always its essence. Btw., really StVo calls its images and sign numbers "categories"? I think, "Zeichen" don't means "category".--ŠJů (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, I was just trying to extrapolate from the existing categories in Category:Road signs in Germany and its parent categories. Which name do you suggest? Still Category:Traffic sign 206 (Germany) or Category:Traffic sign 206 of Germany as you wrote above?

I was drawn into this discussion only by accident, and I don't care much about whether the existing name is kept or any of the proposed other names is used. I'm sure you (ŠJů) or the creator of the category (MB-one), or the proponent of the extraordinarily vague renaming proposal (Docu) have more expertise in this matter than I have. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my expertise in the matter, doesn't go far beyond the fact that, I'm from Germany. And, as I know, the numbering system of the StVO is a primary key for every officially existing sign. Therefore, the number should be a part of the category name and a description would be redundant. --MB-one (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Category:Road sign 206 (Germany) would be optimal. I'm not fundamentally against the German word "Zeichen", but there can occur many kinds of numbered signs (Zeichen) in every of German-language countries. Btw, Austrian road signs are also called "Zeichen" and are also numbered.

As regards "primary key", we can only wish that the German numbering never will be changed and will remain forever and ever. What a foolish hope.

Besides, the past is given. I found the original StVO (RGBl.I, Nr.59, S. 457) from 1934 which don't contain signs but whose § 28 Abt. 5 mentions some "Ausführungsanweisung". But I can't find this executing ordinance (this?). It seems that signs from 1934 (see also here) haven't numbers as a primary key, even no numbers, even not the nowadays numbers. Do you want to place such signs also into categories like "Zeichen 206"? Are you sure that the numbering system was never changed - although StVO was several times replaced with quite new one? Are you sure that StVO didn't use some different numbering in the past? When originated the nowadays numbering? And how we should categorize images of signs which are older than the new numbers? --ŠJů (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this to an end: Category:Road sign 206 (Germany) would work perfect for me. --MB-one (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for me. Category:Verkehrzeichen 206 or Category:Verkehrzeichen 206 (Germany) might work too. Docu at 12:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid "Verkehrzeichen" is not a German word; "Verkehrszeichen" is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, see also a proposed guideline Commons:Naming categories#Principles, especially Universality principle and Selectivity principle. There is (among others) postulated that translations in other languages or language variants are not an acceptable way to specify subdivisions of the main subject and that categories should have preferably unambiguous names. I think, we should apply these guides here. (In contrast to proper names and nearly-proper names where original names are often a better choose.) --ŠJů (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever name is chosen, I think all "Zeichen nnn" subcategories should go into a parent category that clearly indicates where this numbering comes from (let's call that "Zeichen by ASDF standard" for now). "Road signs of Germany" seems too generic for that. Even if "Zeichen by ASDF standard" would also be a subcategory of "Road signs of Germany", it would be primarily one of "Road signs by standard", as the primary criterion is the standard's numbering, not the location. Docu at 04:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such category shouldn't appertain only to one parent category. Every such category can be categorized also by meaning, by shape, colors and used graphic elements, by period etc. The category name "Zeichen 206" appears weirdly and is deficiently predicative when we see it in the category Category:Red octagonal stop signs. Every country has its own Zeichen (= signs). The word "Zeichen" isn't a specification of German signs but only a German word for signs of every type and from all countries. --ŠJů (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say „The word "Zeichen" isn't a specification of German signs“, but thats wrong. The official names of all signs is Zeichen n. It is true, that Zeichen has the meaning of signs outside the StVO, too. I see not, that we must have to translate official names. Even painted lines or arrows are "Zeichen nnn". So reducing the category to "signs" breaches the fulfilment of all "Zeichen" at the StVO. (An line in the middle of the road isn't a sign, but it is a "Zeichen".) So: don't renaming (if you want to add some words, this may be yours). --Quedel (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Buildings by date of destruction

The subcategories below this parent category are, for example, in the format Category:Destroyed in 1889. I would suggest that all the subcategories in the format of, for example, Category:Buildings destroyed in 1889. The same would be true for the 'Buildings in country' subcategories etc. --JD554 (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Categories need a subject, not just a modifier. Rocket000 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Rocket says. --GeorgHH • talk 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rocket000. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't Category:Structures destroyed in 1889 be more useful, so that bridges, dams, etc., are in scope? Category:Destroyed in 1889 already includes a bridge. Or even Category:Objects destroyed in 1889, which would include shipwrecks etc? ghouston (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw the previous comment. There's a whole category tree Category:Disestablishments by year which includes a lot of categories such as Category:Destroyed in 1889. Some of these "destroyed" categories have been made subcategories of Category:Buildings by date of destruction, which is incorrect since they may contain objects and structures that aren't buildings. There is no real category tree Category:Buildings by date of destruction, and I'm not sure if it's needed, but if it was to be created, I think in each case the building category should be a subcategory of the relevant general purpose "destroyed" category. However this would be an awful lot of categories, since it can be one per country per year. --ghouston (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest instead deleting Category:Buildings by date of destruction and its two subcategories since the tree doesn't currently exist. --ghouston (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Van Gogh-related Images

We normally name categories after the subject of their contents, not the contents itself. In the case of this category, there's no reason to put "images" in the title. We could basically call all our categories "xxx-related images". Everything in this category should be recategorized into an appropriate subcategory of Category:Vincent van Gogh (images of the man himself may go directly into the category). Also, his full name should be used and "Images" shouldn't be capitalized. --Rocket000 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a red category with 1 member: Category:Portraits of Vincent van Gogh. I create that and added it into this category.

I agree that Category:Van Gogh-related Images should be merged into Category:Vincent van Gogh as that category is for any images related to VvG. -- Docu at 12:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't await a flood of audio- and video-files related to van Gogh, we have no reason to keep a special subcategory of images, because images are generally the prevalent (default) type of files on Commons. --ŠJů (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "merge from" request in the parent category. That needs to be reorganised before merging. --Foroa (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Estadio Enrique Torres Belón

This category has no files or images. None are available at the moment. This category should be deleted until appropriate images are uploaded. --MicroX (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Empty categories may be speedy-deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and tagged for speedy. May be recreated when needed. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 22 September 2010 by Túrelio (talk · contribs). May be recreated when needed. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Nephtytis

Reasons for discussion request: Ortograph. error, the proper category is Category:Nephthytis (created), media moved --Enzo^ (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a misspelling, we would generally just request the bot to move the category and then add {{speedy|empty, moved to Category:Nephthytis}}

As this spelling doesn't seem to be that rare, you might want to add {{category redirect|Nephthytis}} instead. Docu at 10:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 22 September 2010 by Túrelio (talk · contribs). May be recreated if a redirect is required. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Nephtytis afzelii

Reasons for discussion request: Ortograph. error, the proper category is Category:Nephthytis afzelii (created), media moved --Enzo^ (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; tagged for speedy. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 22 September 2010 by Túrelio (talk · contribs). AusTerrapin (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cidade Nova

Disambiguated category to Category:Cidade Nova (Rio de Janeiro). This should be deleted to avoid badly tagged files. --jonkerz ♠ 12:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted 12:43, 16 September 2010 Foroa deleted "Category:Cidade Nova" ‎ (moved to Category: Cidade Nova (Rio de Janeiro)) Rocket000 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mountains of Himalaya

Not needed. Had three pics (2 maps with category:maps of himalaya; 1 foto that already had a subcat of a mountainrange); I cleared them. So please delete (further explanations: Images of mountains are listed in subcats of the respective mountains or in subcats of subranges of the Himalayas. If that's impossible Category:Himalaya should work. But this Cat:Mountains of Himealaya is superfluous.)--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nom. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Partito_Comunista_del_Lavoratori

Should be deleted because its name is not correct (DEL LAVORATORI); in correct Italian it's Partito Comunista dei Lavoratori. A new category with the correct name (Category:Partito Comunista dei Lavoratori) has just been created. -- Blackcat (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and tagged it for speedy deletion. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 22 September 2010 by Túrelio (talk · contribs). AusTerrapin (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Abandoned_villages_in_USA

Redundent to Category:Ghost towns in the United States, has an improper name ("USA" rather than "United States"), and empty. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. For future reference, empty categories like that can be tagged for speedy deletion or redirected. Rocket000 (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Living_people

Essentially, this holds subcategories named after specific persons. As it isn't used as the one at wp, should this be redirected to Category:People by name?

Previous discussion was here. --- Docu at 00:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A few % per year die, nobody can maintain a living list. --Foroa (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Docu at 04:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Orders and Decorations

Rename Category:Orders and Decorations to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and Decorations in Asia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Asia (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Europe to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Europe (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:British honours system to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom (0 entries moved, 4 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Images of orders, decorations and medals of the Republic of China to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Republic of China (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Order and dicoration in iraq to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Iraq (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Austria to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Austria (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Germany to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Germany (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Italy to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Italy (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Montenegro to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Montenegro (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Naples to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Naples (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Poland to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Poland (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Portugal to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Portugal (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Prussia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Prussia (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in San-Marino to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of San-Marino (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Spain to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Spain (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in the Netherlands to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Netherlands (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Tuscany to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Tuscany (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Wuerzburg to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Wuerzburg (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and Decorations of Armenia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Armenia (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Czechoslovakia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Czechoslovakia (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Finland to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Finland (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Greece to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Greece (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Moldova to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Moldova (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Reuss to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Reuss (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Romania to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Romania (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations of the German Democratic Republic to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the German Democratic Republic (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations of the Holy See (Vatican City) to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and medals of Socialist Yugoslavia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Socialist Yugoslavia (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and medals of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and medals of Yugoslavia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Yugoslavia (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders in Prussia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Prussia (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders of Russian Empire to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Russian Empire (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Order of Saint Lazarus to Category:Order of Saint Lazarus insignia (43 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Decorations of France to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of France (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Merge

Rename Category:Ribbon bars of Vatican to Category:Ribbon bars of the Vatican City (55 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Decorations in Germany to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Germany (0 entries moved, 17 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Decorations of Armenia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Armenia (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Rename Category:Ribbon bars of Philippine to Category:Ribbon bars of the Philippines (118 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

The above changes are required to assist in standardising the category schema for orders, decorations and medals. In accordance with en:WP:ODM guidelines, the overarching category titles should refer to 'Orders, decorations, and medals' not just to 'Orders and decorations' or 'Orders and medals'. This better reflects the full scope of the thematic subject). The proposed changes will address this and will assist in standardising internally to Wikimedia Commons whilst aligning against the Category naming used on the english Wikipedia. The general schema, the structure of which already exists (with exceptions), will become:

Awards (awards cover all forms of awards, not just state orders, decorations and medals)

|—Awards by country

|—Awards of X

|—Orders, decorations, and medals of X

|—Awards by type

|—Orders, decorations, and medals (Orders, decorations and medals covers, with rare exceptions, state issued orders, decorations and medals as part of a state honours system, top level category includes generic media and categories - see [:en:WP:ODM])

|—Orders, decorations, and medals by country

|—Orders, decorations, and medals of X

|—Orders of X

|—Military decorations of X

|—Civil decorations of X

|—Ribbon bars of X

|—Orders (contains generic media and categories about Orders)

|—Orders by country

|—Orders of X

|—Order Y (eg Order of the Garter)

|—Military decorations (contains generic media and categories about military decorations)

|—Military decorations by country

|—Military decorations of X

|—Civil decorations (contains generic media and categories about civil decorations)

|—Civil decorations by country

|—Civil decorations of X

|—Ribbon bars (contains generic media and categories about ribbon bars)

|—Ribbon bars by country

|—Ribbon bars of X

(where X is a country name and Y is the title of a specific order, decoration, etc) -- AusTerrapin (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it will standardise categories as per the nominators explanation. MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

& Support Standarization in category trees is very helpful. SV1XV (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Concord (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if there could be a more concise and global name to group it all. Anyway, there should be no comma after decorations; that is a language error. --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no language error, it is a serial comma. Whilst there are different schools of thought about whether serial commas should or should not be used, it has been the convention of this category structure for several years on en:WP. Part of the idea of the change was to align the Commons English category titling with the category titling on the English Wikipedia making it easier for editors to swap easily between the two. If, and when, multi-lingual category titling is adopted on Commons, I would support alternative language titling mirroring the titling in use on the respective language wikis but that is a bridge we can cross when we get there. Regarding the global name to group it all, we already have the best that is likely to be achieved. Awards is the widesweeping parent category. Orders are not decorations or medals, decorations are not medals and vice versa. Notwithstanding, all three are closely associated with each other. Exonumia covers more than just orders, decorations, and medals and is therefore no better a parent category than awards. "Orders, decorations, and medals" is the category titling that was adopted by WP:ODM in January 2007 and has been used quite successfully without the myriad of inconsistent variations that have sprung up on Commons. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Consensus seems to have been established (and serial commas are perfectly ok). I'm issuing the requests right now. Rocket000 (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serial commas are not common in the international world and not used so far on commons. We cannot mix different styles. --Foroa (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Palauet_Albeniz

Should be deleted. I have created it with the right name Jordiferrer (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Palauet Albéniz. -- Docu at 05:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Murales_a_Tinnari

Delete: titolo errato - sosrituito da "Murales a Tinnura" Discanto (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --rimshot^talk 06:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Images from the National Archives and Records Administration

As an employee of NARA and of the Still Pictures access division in particular, I think that this category is improperly described. The title of the category regards the files within as images held under the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration. However, the description and notably the template "NARA-image" regards images solely under the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) system with a digital copy or description. This is patently deceiving when it comes to the true nature of NARA's holdings. In Special Media alone, there are approximately 13 million images within NARA's custody, and only a fraction of them are identified in ARC. An even smaller number of them actually have been scanned and are available as digital copies. In fact, ARC is only complete to 68 percent at the SERIES level... (this means that 32 percent of NARA's holdings are not even mentioned on ARC at all, much less identified, cataloged, and digitized as individual records. I'd appreciate discussion on this matter. --BcNARApix (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could move the ones identified in ARC to a subcategory and update {{NARA-image}} accordingly. What name would you suggest for such a subcategory, e.g. Category:Images from the National Archives and Records Administration identified in the Archival Research Catalog ? Docu at 08:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It would probably need two subcategories: one for those with an image specific identifier and another one for those with a series specific identifier. Docu at 09:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be perfect, actually. It removes the ambiguity that I was referring to and properly identifies the picture sources. The necessity for two subcategories really depends on the information associated with the photographs themselves - If a series is going to be designated, its more than likely the person or group who scanned the photo is going to include the item identifier too, i.e. an image simply attributed to the National Archives vs. an image with the source and citation information.--BcNARApix (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I tried to add part of your explanation to the main category description. I think it should be enhanced/corrected to guide users as much as possible. Docu at 09:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've taken a look at it, and I'll try to enhance it as you mentioned, as it's a little bit convoluted (not by your fault at all, it's the system unfortunately). The way that Special Media describes its images involves a few separate components, as in the example 80-G-12345: the Record Group being 80 (which designates it as records created by the Department of the Navy), the series being G (which designates the item as being part of the General Photographs series) and then the number corresponding to the individual image itself. The problem with the ARC system, is that while it is extremely helpful to people as a research tool, it is separate from the systems that NARA's branches (Textual, Special Media-Stills/Motion/Cartographic and the Regional/Presidential Libraries) employ to catalog records. Until NARA gets the manpower and funding to digitize all of its billions (literally) of records, ARC will be incomplete.--BcNARApix (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion can probably be closed. {{NARA-image}}, which feeds this, can now take "None" as a parameter, which gives the notice "This item has no ARC Identifier. It is likely that only its record group (collection) and/or series have been described in the catalog; those citations should be provided on this page along with any Local Identifier." And, at the same time, we are not working with the description staff on cataloging any items that have made their way into the Wikimedia projects with quality scans before NARA cataloged them, and using the Wikipedian scans. Dominic (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category is kept, as the issue with the category has been addressed. Harej (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2011 (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.

Category:Tattoo_innormizm

I'm pretty sure "innormizm" is a made up word by a not-so-notable tattoo artist (his en.wp was deleted[16] however he has been in tattoo magazines). The word can be found in various places all over the web but always can be traced back to Grisha Maslov. The category seems like a valid subcategory to group images that all have a similar style, but the problem is I can't find a definition of what exactly that style is. I would like to rename this category instead of upmerging it into the main one, but I have no idea what to call it. Rocket000 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category seems to be created solely for promoting own works. While uploading them (still I have doubts about permissions/licenses though) is welcomed; creating "OR-like" categories is in my opinion not. Masur (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. FieldMarine (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Jcb (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Stained_glass_of_Mary_Magdalene

to delete, the right category is: Category:Stained glass windows of Mary Magdalene Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted bad name. --rimshot^talk 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tensile_steel_testing

Empty cat Wizard191 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshot^talk 20:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Rolling_stock_of_Kishu_Railway

Kishu Railway Kiha 600 series まも (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Doesn't seem valid reason. And there's no substitute for this category. Yasu (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing done, as no reason was given. --rimshot^talk 20:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Apple_aluminum_keyboards

Redundant with Category:Apple Inc. aluminum keyboard Fletcher6 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 19:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy

Category:Aircraft carriers has subcategories for Category:Aircraft carriers by navy and Category:Aircraft carriers by country.
Category:Aircraft carriers by navy has one subcategory, Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy.
Category:Aircraft carriers by country contains the subcategory Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States, which also lists Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy itself.
I'm not sure what if any difference there is supposed to be between the two US carrier categories, nor am I sure what the difference is between carriers by country and carriers by navy for that matter (as if a non-country might have a navy with aircraft carriers or a country might have carriers without a navy?). Maybe someone can shed some light on this but as far as I can tell the category in this request, by nature, should be the exact same category as Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States, and since Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy is missing all of the nuclear powered carriers (Nimitz class and the new Ford class), I propose one of the following:

Delete Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy, or
Rename Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy to Category:Conventional aircraft carriers of the United States, pull the conventionals out of Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States and pull the nukes down to a new subcategory called Category:Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the United States.

I don't have a preference or opinion between the two solutions. Both would solve the major problem I see here, which isn't that there is a duplicate category, but rather that there is a duplicate, almost-identically-named category that is missing a lot, so people will end up there and wonder why they can't find Category:USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), for example.
Note: After a decision is reached regarding this page, there should probably be a discussion about Category:Aircraft carriers by navy and whether it should be deleted as a failed duplicate of Category:Aircraft carriers by country. --DanielDeibler (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at en:Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy it has "This category is for aircraft carriers commissioned or otherwise operated by the United States Navy. For aircraft carriers by era or conflict, or aircraft carriers designed or built in the United States for use by other navies (if any), see Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States.". I think the solution is to replicate the category structure from en. Benchill (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, along with the then empty Category:Aircraft carriers by navy. --rimshot^talk 19:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Carl_Heinrich_Stratz

Most of the images in this category are not used anywhere on any other wikis, and thus do not appear to have substantial educational content fitting inside COM:SCOPE. The child nudity may also be a problem. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images are used at at least 47 places. --Foroa (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category is author Carl Heinrich Stratz, a notable German doctor, early 20th century; it includes material from 3 books he wrote about stages of human development. how is this not educational? & commons doesn't only host files being used on other wikimedia projects, we are an open-source/free media repository for educational files that can be used freely on & off wikimedia projects; whether a file is "in-use" on a wm project does not prove or disprove its worth; being "in-use" primarily means "don't mess with it, if you don't know what you're doing & don't have a good reason to be doing it". as regards the second point, the nudity is non-sexual & the books are pd-old. finally, the status of this material has repeatedly been discussed in the past, & it has been "kept" Lx 121 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource uses hundreds of images from this category tree, but after only four months editing on Commons, the proposer probably hasn't found that yet. I suspect the proposer is a monolingual and hasn't attempted to read the w:de:Carl_Heinrich_Stratz where he would discover what a notable and intellectually challenging individual, the Herr Doktor was. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, in wide use, clearly in scope. --rimshot^talk 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Aerial photographs by camera vehicle

I propose a deletion of this category, including its sub-categories. It really doesn't matter from what the the image is taken from, because there is no way you can identify it through the image. Such habits are just over-categorization. The images in this category are better off in subcats of Category:Aerial photographs. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Definitely over-categorization.--BcNARApix (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; emptied Category:Aerial photographs from paragliders. Pending deletion. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; emptied Category:Blimp aerial photography. Pending deletion. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; emptied Category:Aerial photographs from kites. Pending deletion. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; emptied Category:Aerial photographs from helicopters. Pending deletion. Category:Aerial photographs by camera vehicle can now also be deleted. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, partly. I did not see this discussion, now I see what happened to Category:Aerial photographs from kites and similar categories. Some of these moves have caused other wikimedia projects to see dead links. Examples: English wikipedia Kite aerial photography linked to the empty Category:Aerial photographs from kites; as did the Czech wikipedia article Letecká_fotografie_z_draků. I have since restored Category:Aerial photographs from kites to File:Calton Hill from a kite.jpg, so that at least the other projects have something to see. -84user (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Also most specifically oppose the wholsale deletion rolled into this of Category:Blimp aerial photography. This is a significantly different method from, say kites or airplanes, and not overcat. Ingolfson (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this dead discussion. Reasons for keeping the categories were given. ghouston (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Strukturbericht

A more correct name for this category and its subcategory should be "Crystallographic point groups" (an English term, used in crystallography) instead of "Strukturbericht" (a German term of a journal, that I think nobody use). See w:en:Crystallographic point group. --Aushulz (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-categories refere to a notation (A1, L1₃, etc.) which is specific to the Strukturbericht journal (a supplement to the Zeitschrift für Kristallographie in the beginning). This notation is widely used in some fields. It is complementary to other notation such as space group number, Pearson symbols, Schoenflies or Hermann-Mauguin notations. The notation used by the Strukturbericht journal takes into account the chemical composition, which is not the case of the "purely crystallographic" notations which only take into account the symmetries.

For this reason, I think that this category is accurate and useful. See for example http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/struk/index.html

Cdang (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep these categories too, even if I never use this classification myself, other people do and they're helpful to see at a glance that different compounds have the same structure. The Strukturbericht categories are also sorted under Category:Crystal structures by space group (better than "point groups" I think), when the right category exists.

Since so few people have commented here and it's been more than a year, I'll remove the template on the category - undo my change if you feel it's necessary to keep the discussion going.

Perditax (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, as per comments. ghouston (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Partidos of Buenos Aires Province

It should be explained, what the content of this category is (or should be...) and it would be better to have an english name.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nightscream (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What would you suggest the English name should be? The literal translation would be Parts of Buenos Aires Province, which is meaningless, and confusing. A partido is both a municipality and a department, and so to use either Municipalities of Buenos Aires Province or Departments of Buenos Aires Province would be misleading and equally confusing. English Wikipedia uses the word partidos to describe these entities in the absence of anything better. I have no objection to an explanation being added, which could easily be taken from the English Wikipedia page, which reads:

A partido is an administrative subdivision of the province of Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. They are formally considered to be a single municipality, and usually contain one or more population centers (i.e. towns and cities). These are distinct from all other provinces of Argentina, which call their first-level subdivisions departamento (see Departments of Argentina), and are further subdivided into distinct municipalities.

Skinsmoke (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, since the discussion is dead and the name matches Wikipedia. Added a description to the category. ghouston (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Education_Pdf_files

Useless categorization. All PDF files we have are hopefully educational. If this category was for PDFs related to education (like schools, curriculum, etc) then I would understand its purpose, but it's apparently for anything educational... everything should be categorized by topic. Rocket000 (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support; speedy delete? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few on-topic files, so there's no need to delete it. I moved the off topic stuff to a parent category. ghouston (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Search and Rescue boats in Finland

Empty, replaced by Category:Search and Rescue boats in of Finland. Badzil (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category replaced by a new category that conforms to naming style, although I believe that the replacement category is actually Category:Search and Rescue boats of Finland. MKFI (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Deleted. Techman224^Talk 05:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Old category has been deleted, I believe this discussion can be closed. MKFI (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as per discussion. ghouston (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sightseeing spots of Japan

It seems that this category is a duplicate of Category:Visitor attractions in Japan. IMO Sightseeing spots should be replaced for two reasons:

Category:Visitor attractions by country exists while Category:Sightseeing spots by country doesn't.
According to Commons:By location category scheme: When [object] "of" [place name] means location in which the object may currently be found, then "in" shall be used. Yasu (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both can coexist if it is useful to distinguish, because "sightseeing spots" (w:ja:観光地)　and "visitors attractions" (w:en:Tourist attraction) have slightly different meanings for different point of views. For example, the former implies interest/beautiful landscapes/area,etc for everyone including inhabitants (supplier view), and the latter implies interesting spots/events,etc for tourists (consumer view).
My opinion is, better to keep current Category:Sightseeing spots of Japan (or rename to Category:Sightseeing spots in Japan) as inhabitants/supplier view, and separately, improve Category:Visitor attractions in Japan for tourists/consumer view. Current "~ by prefecture" structure seems to be too fragmentary to search a sightseeing area spanning several prefectures, and hard to search nearby spots on different prefecture, IMO. --Chime (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The global category is Category:Sightseeing, and it's a subcategory of Category:Tourism. Since Category:Sightseeing in Japan also exists, I'll redirect Category:Sightseeing spots of Japan there. Category:Sightseeing spots by prefecture of Japan and subcategories are still inconsistent, but anyone is welcome to rename them or start a separate discussion on that category. ghouston (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Thorn_(farm)

Content in this category is from numerous farms/villages, with the only commonality being the name - truly pointless trivia. This suggests Delete of course.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting. ghouston (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Electronic musicians

I suggest a merge of Category:Electronic musicians into Category:Electronic music artists. Category:Electronic music artists from the United States and Category:Electronic musicians from the United States should then also be merged. Hekerui (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Stands to reason, and eliminates redundancy. BcNARApix (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like they should be merged, but in Category:Musicians by genre "musicians" is a lot more common than "music artists". So shouldn't the merge go in the other direction? That would match en:Wikipedia too. ghouston (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Electronic musicians" and "Category:Electronic music artists" should be merged right away!! Orrlingtalk 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll merge Category:Electronic music artists into Category:Electronic musicians. --ghouston (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Craters on the Moon

Propose renaming

These craters are really impact craters. See also their parent category—Category:Impact_craters. Ruslik (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't see the need for it right now (especially as not all extraterrestrial craters will be impact, even if that is true here). But won't oppose rename if others agree. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. To be in line with others at Category:Impact craters. Also, I don't seem to come up with what else can cause terrestrial craters? Someone threw grenades from Earth? ;) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asume you mean extra-terrestrial craters? Well, volcanism is existent outside of Earth, so there are non-impact craters around. MAYBE not on the Moon, but we are not really talking about the Moon only here, but about whether we need to specialise the category more than it is at the moment. IF this change to impact craters is done, we at least need an intermediate cat. 04:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no non-impact craters on Phobos, and it does not appear to be any non-impact craters in the Moon's category. Ruslik (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Don't see the need for it as stated by another. The disruptive proposal seems merely officious. O'Dea (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other kind would be volcanoes. See w:en:Hyginus_(crater) or [17]. ghouston (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for the change. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Bird's-eye view

I propose a deletion of this category, with its contents categorized into subcats of Category:Aerial photographs. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Agreed. I am not even sure what is specifically meant by "bird's eye view".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In terms of cartography or aerial photography, "bird's eye view" is a misused term in the Commons. BcNARApix (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Moved contents to aerial photographs category; pending deletion. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am extremely disturbed by two aspects of this deletion discussion. First, our nominator didn't choose to advise the contributor who started the article of the discussion. We don't reach a real consensus if we choose not to invite those who disagree with us to voice their views -- and give their counter-arguments fair consideration. {{Cfd}} should not be a rubber stamp. There should be real discussions. Second, I strongly disagree with our nominator reassigning all the images in the category to other categories, as if this discussion had already been concluded as delete. Good faith contributors who want to weigh in with an informed opinion should be able to look at the category, and look at the images, prior to reaching that conclusion. This is no longer possible. Geo Swan (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked our nominator why they removed the category from File:Mekong River between Laos and Thailand -a.jpg. In their reply they stated that they thought the category was "redundant". If one is searching for birds' eye views it is certainly not redundant. Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is a bird's eye view different than an aerial view, or more generally, view from above? I'm not trying to be difficult - I am just asking. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider File:Bird's eye view of a snowy orchard in Bistrita, Romania.jpg. I suggest it is different than other images that are view from above. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how is it different? To me, that's a view from above. Perhaps you could clarify. The issue here is whether this category replicates existing categories. You need to explain how it is substantially different such that we need to create a new category. How will editors know what belongs where? It is something we would need to be able to put into words. It's not apparent to me that this category is needed, as it appears to replicate existing categories (thus, the "redundant" comment that was made above), so what I am looking for is an explanation of how this fits into the category tree and how there will not be any confusion between this category and the other categories. Again, I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative, and if there was some sort of reasonable distinction between the categories, I would say keep this category; but right now, I am not seeing any difference between this category and existing categories. But I will keep an open mind.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect GeoSwan, I don't think you are handling the discussion right. Your question was "Do you accept...?", hence I gave my personal opinion. For a more formal decision, I have created this discussion, with the intention of hearing what others think. You simply cannot vote "keep" based on this. Thats ridiculous. But I do accept, not informing the creator is my fault; honestly I forgot. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 16:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, as nominator, aren't you supposed to give a reason for the deletion? You didn't do so. The opinions we express here aren't votes. I honestly didn't believe this category was redundant when I made my comment. I honestly don't believe it is redundant now. And I honestly don't believe it was ridiculous to say so. Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than focusing on who said/did what when, I think it would be helpful if we focused on the substance of the issue, which is what this category is intended to capture and how that differs from the category for Views from Above. I've put the question to both GeoSwan and 84user, in order to try and possibly figure out a solution to this debate, but I am still waiting for answers to my question above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move,

Oppose delete and

Keep. I also echo Geo Swan's concern about this discussion. I have found that these changes have caused other wikiprojects to see dead links. Examples: the Czech wikipedia article Nadhled was seeing the dead page Category:Bird's-eye view (until I reverted one of the above changes), as was the Chinese article 俯视图. We should not forget that Commons should be serving the users and not merely ourselves. Please note I am reverting a few of these changes so that other wikiprojects see fewer dead pages. Please consider reverting the others, or make a full discussion (I suggest at the Village Pump), considering all the effects on our client projects. -84user (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if this move was wrong. As you can see the last "support" was on September 16, so I thought there wouldn't be any "opposes", hence I did it in good faith. Please revert if you find this appropriate. I will too restore the work wherever I can. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate you are working with good intentions. And thank you for doing a generally thankless job. By the way, I have only just now seen the related category Category:Views by angle which includes Category:Worm's-eye view described in English and German wikipedia articles as the opposite of Category:Bird's-eye view. -84user (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, procedural issues aside, Category:Views by angle also includes category:Views from above, so it would appear that the concept is covered off. The issue here is how is this category different from views from above or aerial views? Just because different terms exist for the same concept doesn't mean that we create categories for all the terms. I am really trying to get to a sense as to how this category accomplishes something different than the existing categories. The existence of Category:Worm's-eye view doesn't in itself justify Category:Bird's-eye view, if the latter is mere duplication. See my comment to GeoSwan above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In an effort to resolve this, some time ago I asked the simple question of the two contributors who favour keeping this category: how is this category different from existing categories? Except for a link to an image of a snowy orchard in Romania, there has been no response to date. I know everyone is busy, so no worries about delays in responding, but a response would be appreciated. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Birds-eye perspective, like worm's-eye view (with the more speaking German names: Vogelperspektive and Froschperspektive (Frog-perspective)), is a term in photography and film (en:Bird's eye shot) that generally means a special (wide angle) perspective (Vanishing point close by) that you don't have with aerial photographs (often a specific angle that is not possible with aerial photographs). I added/removed some pics to make it more clear. In my opinion, this category should clearly document this and warn that it is not equal to aerial photographs, rather a subset. --Foroa (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting - thanks, that would appear to be a distinction that we could work with. Although, shouldn't the category be Category:Bird's eye shots, as per the link you note in your comment, rather than Bird's-eye views, as the en-wiki article on the latter doesn't really distinguish the latter terms from aerial shots or views from above. What do you think? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely clear to me how you envision the subject of this category, given the examples you have used to populate the category. Could you please point to some examples of what you anticipate would be included, and why, and what would not be included? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I needed some thinking. All aerial views can be considered as bird's eye views, as stated by the en:wikipedia. We need a distinguishing name for this category that should contain all bird'eye views that cannot be (reasonably) taken using standard aerial photo equipment, that operate normally with medium to telephoto lenses with very limited depth of view; they cannot have a sharp foreground and a sharp background. Category:Bird's eye shots is not very different from the current name, while I think that, like in the German name where they don't mixup with aerial photographs, Category:Bird's eye perspective might be less confusing. If you call it perspective, then several pictures that are (hardly) possible with aerial photography (from towers or so) should be removed.

Another somewhat simple example is easy to understand in nl:Horizon (perspectief); no need to read theory about perspectives. Several IW would be completely wrong too. --Foroa (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And some more mixup: Category:High-angle shot: a low height aerial shot ... --Foroa (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Bird's-eye view" is a term which has been commonly used in architecture as in this example or this one (see captions) for perspectives drawn from an imagined high-point not accessible to humans, but to birds. It is different from "aerial view", which in architecture is used for real images taken from the air (airplane). "View from above" seems to be the broadest, as it appears to mean any view from a level above that of the subject. I am not aware of the use of the term in other fields, but for this reason alone the category should be kept. Otherwise I fully agree that the three similar categories "bird's eye view", "Views from above" and "Aerial views" should be more clearly defined so that the same image is not triple categorized. --ELEKHH^T 03:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the pictures in the category could be recategorised as aerial photographs, but there are others taken from the tops of buildings taht could do with some kind of special treatment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, this has been open a long time. I can think of two mutually exclusive justifications, differing substantially as to what goes in:

A Birds Eye View is not a photograph. It's a painting, drawing, or other pre- or non-photographic work.
A Birds Eye View may or may not be a photograph, but in either case it isn't a straight-down view as in most official, comprehensive collections of aerial or satellite photos. It's a slant view. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support One year later and it's still open. Category:Bird's-eye view isn't useful if it's going to be interpreted as a synonym for Category:Aerial views or Category:Views from above. On the other hand, Category:Bird's-eye view postcards seems fine at the moment because there isn't a potential duplicate category Category:Aerial view postcards. Likewise, if there are other meaningful categories that can be found, such as drawings from an elevated view point, then I think they should be created with non-ambiguous names. It doesn't really matter much if it's Category:Drawings from a bird's-eye view or Category:Drawings from an aerial view point, or whatever, as long as it has a meaningful definition and won't be confused with some other category. In summary, I support deleting Category:Bird's-eye view, but don't have any objection to the use of the term in other well-defined categories. ghouston (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I support discarding this cat making it a redirect to "Aerial photographs". There's several parents into which its content can migrate: Top views, Views from above and Aerial photographs are the more obvious ones. With "Bird's-eye view" they just make too many, with insignificant distinctions between them in my opinion. Orrlingtalk 21:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--- Should one now count the voices supporting and opposing the deletion proposal and take relevant action basing on the outcoming majority? This discussion seems inactive. (As stated, I support deleting the cat.) Orrlingtalk 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus either way, although it would be beneficial if the difference between aerial and bird's-eye were made clear in the respective category pages, and the files adjusted accordingly. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Troy, New York Collection

Inapropriate category: Commons categories are not collections based on personal judgment. Fully redundant to the appropriate topic category Category:Troy, New York. --Martin H. (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it fills a separate need. Where Category:Troy, New York is really meant to be a main category (i.e., in a perfect world there would be no images in the category, only sub-categories), Category:Troy, New York Collection allows a user to see all images tagged with the {{TroyNY}} template (a template that has been added to every piece of media in the Category:Troy, New York tree), which is intended to pique the interest of the reader/viewer to searching for more images that might interest them. In that category, they might find another image they like, open it, and then follow the path of subcategories to other similar subjects. This category isn't hurting anything; it's actually offering a way for readers/viewers to see a whole range of media on the city rather than making them click down a category tree to find something they might otherwise have missed. upstate NYer 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For that purpose we have galleries, Commons:Galleries#Galleries vs. categories. --Martin H. (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you there, but the aim is to include all the images. Also, galleries require manual update whereas adding the template to the image automatically fills this category. A hybrid of the two would be nice, but I doubt that's technically possible. upstate NYer 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally category tools, not galleries should make it possible to do what you are looking for. As there aren't that many images yet, you could use CatScan. It tends to get messy though if there are too many subcategories, especially such that are only marginally related to Troy and it stops working if there are more than 1000 images. -- Docu at 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1000 images can get hit pretty quickly, though. upstate NYer 01:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted. Firstly, the name is bad, it reads like it's an art gallery or something, so you are left to wonder who assembled this particular collection. The description in the category doesn't help. Secondly, if the category is intended to contain every file under Troy, New York, then it's just a duplicate of Troy, New York. The category system is hierarchical, and adding "flat" categories at random points in the tree isn't a good idea. ghouston (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. As has been said above, that's not the purpose of a category, and I question the appropriateness of the template that (formerly) categorized pages into this category. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Maps_of_oceans

to lose all images from wikimedia commons Thai duc tran tan loc (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: non-sense request. --Ju Ta 19:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:TequlaJazzz

Mis-spelled, new category created and image recatted. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rename as en:Tequilajazzz --Butko (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already speedy deleted by User:Butko. -- Docu at 05:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Katharina_Boßmann

Dieses Fräulein "Katharina Boßman" ist zwar die Rheinische Kartoffelkönigin, aber das rechtfertigt im Rahmen des Commons Scopes (COM:SCOPE) meines Erachtens nicht die Aufnahme als eigenständige Kategorie, denn Katharina Boßmann ist weitestgehend enzyklopädisch nicht relevant. 80.187.103.28 18:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished that a nameless user who never did any other edit likes to teach about the Commons project scope. That's very hard to take serious. -- Ies (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sock puppet, nothing more? -- Ies (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you bring some arguments that show that "Katharina Boßman" is in the project scope? The way how you act is wrong: you bry to transfer this discussion to personal levels - which is no basis for a discussion - equal where. --80.187.102.113 18:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion with obvious sock puppets! -- Ies (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove it. All images are sorted already to Category:Rheinische Kartoffelkönigin 2010/2011 which is a good category for the event Category:Lüttringhauser Bauernmarkt 2010 and allows adding the event and the special contest to various interesting categories related to time, location and type of event. Making that a subcategory of a not notable person is not needed. The name is still preserved in the file description as many, many other people on Common who appear in some event related photographs but who are not subject to categorization themself. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Margot_Vliegenthart

Typo in category name when I just made this category: 'Margot' should be 'Margo' (new category with correct name already created) Robotje (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{Speedy}}. Docu at 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Metro stations by city

As I noted in Category talk:Metro stations by city with three exceptions it only lists stations in cities where the official name for the local mass rapid transit system is "metro". It would be useful to have a category that enabled access to all the stations, by city, without regard to whether the official name was "metro", "subway", "U-bahn", "underground", or something else.

If this is the category where all the stations are to be listed, by city, I think the name of category is inappropriate.

A complicating factor in choosing a new name is that what are considered subways in one city might only be considered trams in another. The Rochester Subway, for example, was grade separated, but only used standard streetcar rolling stock. I suggest the decision should be based on whether the stops could meaningfully be considered "stations", and aren't just trumped up kiosks.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that categorising Underground, U-bahn, etc stations together with stations on systems called "Metro" would provide more useful categorisation. I'm not convinced though that Category:Metro stations by city is an inappropriate name for the category as "metro" is the generic term for these systems, at least in British English. Category:Mass rapid transit stations by city would also include (imho) things like bus rapid transit systems but that is not the intent of the current category. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is a Category:Rapid transit stations by country, so potentially Category:Rapid transit stations by city could be an alternative? 94.220.245.245 13:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if we created a Category:Rapid transit stations by city then Category:Metro stations by city would be redundant subset of the new category -- agreed? Geo Swan (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good and reasonable. Proposal accepted. :) --Jcornelius (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Manoel_de_Araújo_Porto-alegre

español 186.97.64.183 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How should it be called instead? Docu at 04:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what's wrong about this category? tetraktys (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, nothing requestd here. Name is ok according to en:Manuel de Araújo Porto-alegre and pt:Manuel de Araújo Porto-alegre. --Martin H. (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Goldcrest_Executive

No images. 84.61.131.141 10:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Victoria_Mill,_Miles_Platting

Request deletion- the correct category is Victoria Mills, Miles Platting (plural) ClemRutter (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Category:Victoria Mills, Miles Platting -- Common Good (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Fire_engines_of_Talin

Category was created with grammatic mitakes, correct "Fire engines of Tallinn" Dmitry G (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Speedy}}. Docu at 12:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Red_and_white_land_vehicles

I wonder what's the point of this category? Peter.shaman (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason(s) for deletion. --FAEP (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess Peter just wants to ask. Answer: This is a main cat. for several vehicles with that color combination (there are a lot more to come). --Mattes (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I actually believe it's pointless and Your answer didn't make this any more legitimate to me. FAEP go ahead and copy-paste the same "No valid reason(s) for deletion" if You can't make up anything more original. Some should definitely buy hosting and create their own galleries with naked girls and red/white land vehicles instead making mess at wikipedia Peter.shaman (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, Commons is a media repository, so it distinguishes itself from wikipedias through its many visual (colors, shapes, angles) related categories. So if you are dreaming of a purple station wagon, you can find it here. --Foroa (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless category indeed. Should really be done by the search engine directly.

Keep as that doesn't work yet. Docu at 11:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestion how to improve a search engine that it can identify objects and the colors it is painted in ? --Foroa (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are search engines that can recognize colors. Obviously, it's not Special:Search and not as perfect as categories, thus I think we have to live with categories for the next ten years. Docu at 20:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Shelby_Mustang_GT500KR

Moved all files to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shelby_Mustang as this category is too specific Peter.shaman (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason(s) for discussion or deletion. --FAEP (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ford_Mustang_GT500

This category isn't needed - too specific, makes only confusion Category:Shelby_Mustang is sufficient. Peter.shaman (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason(s) for deletion. --FAEP (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Shelby_GT-H

Too specific category, Category:Shelby Mustang is sufficient. Peter.shaman (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason(s) for deletion. --FAEP (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ford_Mustang_FR500_GT3

Too specific page, containing only 3 files. Peter.shaman (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason to delete categories. --Foroa (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason(s) for discussion or deletion. --FAEP (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so then this category, which I just created is also legitimate and should be kept: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bear_Mountain_Bridge_in_autumn_facing_north

I wonder how it is that anyone without reason can create most pointless category (only to make mess), but then if one wants to make order it's impossible to delete it and move pictures to the right categories. Peter.shaman (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what is the deal, it's a subcategory for the GT3 version build by Matech Competition or currently by Multimatic/MarcVDS-Racing. I can easily upload more pictures of a GT3 version, especially the belgian GT3 from 2009, what does it changes?

Kept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:828_meters_scyscrapers

The title of this category is misspelled. 84.61.131.141 09:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Use {{Bad name}} in such a trivial situation

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tropical_Depression_01W

empty category Waihorace (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was created in error by me a few weeks ago.Jason Rees (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Onion_domes_in_North_Rhine-Westfalia

the correct category is: Onion domes in North Rhine-Westphalia Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category deleted, next time just use template {{speedy|bad name, moved to category name}}. Yarl ✉ 16:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Scans_from_'CJ_Allen,_Steel_Highway',_1928

Although a 1928 work, it's not clear how this work is PD in the UK. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entire work isn't, as CJ Allen died only c. 40 years ago. However no-one is claiming this (it's not on Wikibooks or Gutenberg, AFAIK), merely the images. None of the photos are his. Most are credited to a variety of anonymous railway company photographers. We are thus talking about effectively unknown photographs that were published 80+ years ago. That meets PD requirements in most jurisdictions, particular the US & UK jurisdictions that are most relevant here. Should any of the named photographers be traceable and demonstrated to have outlived the relevant dates, then there might be an issue on those images (and those images alone). Apart from C J Allen though, none of them are names that are known to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a claim that some of them are an unknown photographer, which assuming the photographer genuinely can't be identified would make at least some of the UK and European images acceptable. Images that are likely to have been taken outside the EU (or the Commonwealth) would need further comment. Looks like each individual image needs checking. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite every image having been checked at the time of upload you've seen fit to slate the category for deletion, and to duplicate this with scatter-gunned deletion requests on individual images. None of these photographers are people like OS Nock, Ivo Peters, or indeed C J Allen, who have obviously traceable histories, many are simply anonymous corporate photographers. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much inclined to respect Andy Dingley's care in uploading only images that fit PD-old. This is not only assume-good-faith, but assuming good faith and good care from a contributor with around 11,000 edits on Commons and very little controversy. Certainly the category should not be deleted -- there are many PD images in it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, as individual image have proven to acceptable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom, Kept. I have gone through the category and put DR tags on ten images which need discussion as the photographer is known. The rest appear to be anonymous or corporate and therefore PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mihr Ali

This category covers the same subject as the correctly spelt Category:Mihr 'Ali. Grutness (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category deleted, images moved to proper cat. Yarl ✉ 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Dubai_Marriott_Harbour_Hotel_&_Suites

No images. 84.61.153.119 15:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time just use {{speedy|empty cat.}} template. Yarl ✉ 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Buddhistic buildings in Poland

I would prefer to merge this with Category:Buddhism in Poland or renaming it to Buddhist buildings in Poland, but "Buddhistic" doesn't make sense. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Buddhist temples by country, so I've added raname request. Yarl ✉ 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion: Hobbys

Most hobbys can be classified under the sport categorys. However where do you put railfans and collector hobbys? airplane spotters? A subcategory under their subject? Or a more general classification to collect al the different hobbys.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the Trainspotting category. It is under headcategory "Hobbies" and "People associated with rail transport". I suggest that hobbies can be divided into:

Sport (for example sailing, parachutejumps, horseriding etc)
Games (computer games, historical recreations, card games, poker, chess?)
Music, dances, theatre, moviemaking
Technical interest: Trainspotters, airplanespotters, historical research, astronomy, Family tree research. modelbuilders. I would include al the collector hobbies. Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:William_Houstoun

Unnecessary category, created by me Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time just use {{speedy}} template. Yarl ✉ 14:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Jenna_Jameson

www.5566.com 61.180.66.188 16:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you spam??? --lovekrittaya (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, vandalism. Yarl ✉ 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Flags_with_lielies

emptied in favor of correctly spelled Category:Flags with lilies — Jeff G. ツ 03:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, misspelling. --rimshot^talk 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Nissan_Tino

80.87.92.48 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, inactive. --rimshot^talk 23:31, 14 January 2011 (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.

Category:Collecting

Jakou cenu muzou mit starozitne housle od L.F.Soukupa z roku 1905. 83.208.42.240 17:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Slovak: What price could an antique violin by L. F. Soukupa from 1905 bring? Alfons Åberg (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep speedily: this is not a request for deletion or renaming of the category, and is the wrong venue for this question. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, Commons is not a forum and that is not a valid request. Béria Lima ^msg 16:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cornel_Chiriac

empty Ionutzmovie (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --rimshot^talk 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Danube_Barge

This category seems to be incorrectly named: Would't it be better to name it Category:Barges on the Danube or something like that. The current category name implies that a barge called "Danube Barge" is existing but this is not the case - not in this category 80.187.102.68 14:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I named this category Category:Danube Barge. I should have named it Category:Danube Barges or Category:Danube River Barges.

I started corresponding cats like Category:Missouri River Barges, Category:Mississippi River Barges, Category:Hudson River Barges. IMO the name of the River is more important than the type of vessel. Names that lead with the name of the river sort properly when added to Category:Barges by river. Geo Swan (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in line with most of the other categories. In my opinion XXX barges count for a certain possession ot type. Beter to stay in line with most other categories, as will be: [[Barges on the river Danube|Danube]]. That makes it possible to make a lot other categories as [[Barges on the Merwedekanaal|Merwedekanaal]]. To be categorised in Barges by location by river or canal, just as the Category:Ships by location by country.--Stunteltje (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal of Stunteltje. A main concern of Commons' categorization is consistecy and the logical structure of category trees. I support the creation of a category tree with Barges by location by river or canal. But we must find a general solution that applies for barges on canals, lakes(?) and of course rivers. --High Contrast (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see support for a categorisation system. Rhine barges point in several languages to a type of ship (Rheinschiff, Reinaak, Reinschip). And what about a barge that carries the name "Danube Barge"? "Barge by location" category is probably not very practical if the location can be 100 meter wide and 500 km long. Barge by waterway might be more practical. --Foroa (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cheerfully yield to the majority. Geo Swan (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with [[Category:Barges on xxxxx|xxxxx]] together with [[Category:Barges by waterway|xxxxx]]. How is the transfer organised? --Stunteltje (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Category:Barges on the Danube River was created, and Category:Danube Barge was changed to {{Category redirect|Barges on the Danube River}}, wouldn't a friendly robot eventually come along and move all the contents of the original category to the target category? Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to Category:Barges on the Danube River. --rimshot^talk 21:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Diesel_locomotives_of_South_Africa

May be deleted André Kritzinger (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Diesel-electric locomotives of South Africa. --rimshot^talk 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mandelbrot_videos

The current name is confusing, I suggest renaming to Category:Mandelbrot set animations; otherwise, people may think that it contains videos about Benoît Mandelbrot. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 14:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would think that, and people do have eyes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Videos of fractals and Category:Animations of fractals. --rimshot^talk 14:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Commons:Suspected sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels

I don't see a clear need to have to build a shrine to prolific vandals such as this one. --:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. --rimshot^talk 14:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Beachripples

What are beachripples? The category seems to have been created as a subcat to Category:Sandripples, but now merely holds images of water waves on beaches. Crowsnest (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ja, as the one to blame (I'm no native english), may be I did a bad choose - as it's not stable, we could remove it, if there's no specific english word für "sand ripples on the beach" - which geomorphologically differ from wind-made ripples and microdunes in deserts, as they are caused by water and wavelets (what might be "water ripples on the beach") - thats what I indended --W!B: (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi W!B. How to proceed? My suggestion is: rename the category to "Sand ripples (beach)", and reshuffle the images therein and in "Sand ripples" (which category name should contain a space between sand and ripples). But I am open for better suggestions. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the categories Category:Sand ripples (beach) and Category:Sand ripples, and re-categorized files accordingly. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Sand ripples (beach). --rimshot^talk 14:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ancient_Roman_olive_presses

Empty category; replaced by Category:Ancient Roman olive mills — Jeff G. ツ 05:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add {{category redirect|Ancient Roman olive mills}} Docu at 05:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the remains of this kind of objects, people speaks indistinctly of olive mills or olive presses. I proposed to delete this category because it is empty since april 2009. But now I changed my opinion: I agree that this category became a redirect to the other category. Or the inverse. --DenghiùComm (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category. It is ok to me to have it as a redirect to Category:Ancient Roman olive mills. What counts is that we have a category about this type of objects, whatever the name. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Ancient_Roman_olive_mills. --rimshot^talk 14:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:BDSM_whippings

empty category Cathy Richards (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category has been removed because of this deletion request. Perhaps we should wait for the request to conclude before deleting it. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. --rimshot^talk 19:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Córdoba

There are a lot of Córdoba cities in the world [18]. Leave this as a disambiguation. --Alakasam (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I propose to move all subcategories to Category:Córdoba City (Spain). Alakasam (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen in en:Córdoba and en:Córdoba, Spain, Category:Córdoba, Spain is more consistent with commons naming conventons. --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that. Alakasam (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as disambiguation. --rimshot^talk 20:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Province of Córdoba

There are a Córdoba province in Argentina (Category:Córdoba Province (Argentina)). Leave this as a disambiguation. Alakasam (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I propose to move all subcategories to Category:Province of Córdoba (Spain). Alakasam (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, disambiguation at Category:Córdoba. --rimshot^talk 20:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Reliefs_of_Providence_in_the_Czech_Republic

unused, unnecessary cat, only content was File:Cut-eye-Holy Trinity Column - Love.jpg, recategorized into easier to use cats Santosga (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 20:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sculptures_of_Providence_in_the_Czech_Republic

unused, unnecessary cat, only content was File:Cut-eye-Holy Trinity Column - Love.jpg, recategorized into easier to use cats Santosga (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 20:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Reliefs_of_Providence

unused, unnecessary cat, only content was File:Cut-eye-Holy Trinity Column - Love.jpg, recategorized into easier to use cats Santosga (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Providence

unused, unnecessary cat, only content was File:Cut-eye-Holy Trinity Column - Love.jpg, recategorized into easier to use cats Santosga (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Providence, Rhode Island, as it is bound to be re-created anyhow. --rimshot^talk 21:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cathedral of Elvas

Reasons for discussion request: This category should be deleted. It was created by myself with a wrong name, since Elvas lacks a Cathedral church. Files in this category were moved to Category:Church_of_Nossa_Senhora_da_Assunção_(Elvas). Thanks, --Fulviusbsas (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elvas doesn't have a cathedral now, but indeed it used to have one, which is still commonly referred to as "Former cathedral of Elvas", even in the IGESPAR catalogue. Therefore your original designation is not incorrect, and should not be deleted, but turned into a redirect for the new category.--Darwin (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect added as per Darwin . --rimshot^talk 21:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Less-lethal_weapons

Needs to be renamed as non-lethal to match the recent Wikipedia article and category renamings Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. (Later note: See Category:Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons comments farther down.) See en:Talk:Non-lethal weapon. A large group of sockpuppets convinced an admin to change the name of the article to non-lethal weapon. Most real editors on that talk page prefer less-lethal to non-lethal. The previous attempt to rename the category on Wikipedia from less-lethal to non-lethal had more participation, and the decision was "no consensus for proposed rename. The target category remains a soft redirect. There was also no consensus in the discussion to move the article, so right now the two do not correspond." See: en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons. The last category renaming discussion on Wikipedia did not have much participation, and the decision to rename occurred even though there was no consensus. The admin at that category renaming may not have read en:Talk:Non-lethal weapon.

The Commons does not follow along with the many stupid mistakes made on Wikipedia. I don't think Wikipedia, and especially the Commons which is more international and less shaken by the winds of U.S. politics, should be used as a soapbox to announce the laughable belief that rubber bullets are non-lethal. It is not laughable to the families of those killed by them. On Wikipedia we may need to go to the next step in mediation. Most people on the article talk page want to change the name of the article to Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. I could support that for the category name. Mediation or arbitration may be the next step concerning the article. See: en:Rubber bullet.

Such "kinetic impact munitions" are meant to cause pain but not serious injury. They are expected to produce contusions, abrasions, and hematomas. However, they may cause bone fractures, injuries to internal organs, or death. In a study of 90 patients in Northern Ireland, one died, 17 suffered permanent disabilities or deformities and 41 required hospital treatment after being fired upon with rubber bullets.

Refs:

Bozeman, William P.; Winslow, James E. (2005). "Medical Aspects of Less Lethal Weapons". The Internet Journal of Rescue and Disaster Medicine. 5.
Millar, R.; Rutherford, W. H.; Johnston, S.; Malhotra, V. J. (1975). "Injuries caused by rubber bullets: A report on 90 patients". British Journal of Surgery 62 (6): 480–486.

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The weapons used against the IRA were primitive and weapons have gotten much more advanced ever since. Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is determined based on the merits of the belligerents and policy. This category should be renamed no matter how inaccurate it is alleged to be. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber bullets have killed many people and continue to do so. See the examples, studies, reports, etc. listed here:

http://www.google.com/#q=rubber+bullet+deaths --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ This controversial item has been moved back and forward, and will keep moving. Commons should try to be stable. A redirect can be used. --Foroa (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks like the weapon industry/consumers are stronger in pushing the non-lethal weapons name than the NGO's proposing the less-lethal name. The fact that less-lethal might be (arguably) more accurate is not really relevant here; it is how the world and most wikipedias call it. --Foroa (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you bow to the weapons industries and consumers? Are you part of the military, Foroa? That might explain a lot of things, and your weird category names. Most of the world outside the military world uses "less-lethal". Civilian governments usually rule in most democracies. And civilian English is more common too. The military uses non-standard English like "collateral damage" instead of "civilian casualties". And "I.E.D." instead of "homemade bomb". Civilian police use less-lethal. Less-Lethal.org - Hosted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). But hey, if you want to kiss the military's ass, who am I to stop you. Maybe some other people will see reason. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kept my oppose for a long time despite the fact that non-lethal is more common and because I personally would prefer less-lethal. In the mean time, I investigated further which confirmed that non-lethal is the most common name and the "civilians" don't manage to position the less-lethal name properly in the market nor organisations. So yes, we have to bow for the industry and the consumers because they make the market. It is not commons that will change our world, we have to follow the world. And don't insult me by accusing me being part of the military. Next time, you will be on your own for such discussions. --Foroa (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. I usually give up arguing with you. And "less-lethal weapons" is more common than "non-lethal weapons." Look it up in Google. Asking you whether you are in the military is not an insult. Military less-lethal weapons. See this .gov article. "In October 2002, Russians used a 'non-lethal' gas (identified by them as the opiate fentanyl) to subdue terrorists in a Moscow theater, but in the process they killed 117 of about 800 hostages. An expert doctor, in a hospital facility, can apply an anesthesia with fair reliability. To do it safely at a distance is impossible. What were once called 'nonlethal weapons' were renamed 'less than lethal' weapons, and now the preferred and more accurate terminology is 'less lethal.'" --Timeshifter (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint, It will not be moved back and forth. Non-lethal is the term which has more common usage and the article will stay that way unless that changes. Commons should try to be stable is an opinion not a policy. Commons should strive to be consistent. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logic counts more than commonality. The logical name is "Less-lethal and non-lethal weapons". Category names are not based on using the most common words in the English language. Otherwise all categories would be named Category:The and Category:And. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Most categories on commons use the common name principle even though there is currently no accepted naming convention here. Example: Category:Lead pencils (should be graphite pencil according to your "logic"), Category:Tear gas (not a gas), Category:Peanut (not a nut), Category:Jellyfish (not a fish), Category:French horns (originated in Germany). Your strict, nonsensical interpretation of common name suggests you haven't even read the policy. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a choice between 2 names that mean the same thing, then the more common name is the one to use. Less lethal does not mean the same thing as non lethal. The common name for less lethal is less lethal. A rubber bullet is not non lethal. You can't just use a more common name because it is more common. It has to mean the same thing. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do mean the same thing unless you can prove it.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look up "less" and "non" in a dictionary. Or:

Less-Lethal.org - Hosted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). --Timeshifter (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on that website that provides a legal definition of what can be called non-lethal and what can be called less-lethal. Any website you conjure is going to be a minority viewpoint. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not magic or conjuring. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en:Category:Less-lethal launchers on Wikipedia has also recently been renamed. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed to en:Category:Riot guns. That is not non-lethal. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation. In the next week when I get some more time I am going to seek mediation concerning the name of the article on English Wikipedia. I had hoped for resolution of the naming issue without mediation. See: en:Talk:Non-lethal weapon#Mediation sought on inaccurate name. So the decision on the name of the category on the Commons should probably wait for the mediation to end. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

Category:Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. Different branches of the government (police, military, etc) emphasize "non-lethal" or "less-lethal". The media uses "less-lethal". The .gov article is from Technology Review Online. Israel's Arsenal of "Less Lethal" Weapons is from Popular Mechanics. See also: "Less Than Lethal." International Defense Review 27:28-30+ Jul '94.

Even the military has sometime used the phrase "less-lethal" or "less-than-lethal". See:

Lorenz, Frederick. Less-Lethal Force in Operation United Shield. Marine Corps Gazette 79:68-76 Sep '95. Also available online at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=5024739&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=417&RQT=309&VName=PQD

I think this book chapter has the best idea:

U.S. Intervention Policy for the Post-Cold War World. New York, Norton, 1994. 256p. New applications of Nonlethal and Less Lethal Technology, by Richard Garwin, pp 105-131. Book call no.: 327.73009049 U582

Rather than decide to support the labeling of the media, or the police, or the government, we can label the category Non-lethal and Less-Lethal weapons. I think it makes a lot more sense to support reason. And reason states that we shouldn't continue to deny reality, as does the military, and Wikipedia shouldn't decide how lethal or non-lethal each weapon is. Let the readers decide. High-pressure water will kill someone if it pushes them in such a way that they fall and fracture their skull, or they fall against a sharp object like the top of some iron fences. As the Technology Review Online article said "Truly nonlethal weapons do not exist. When the Lone Ranger whacked a bad man on the skull with the butt of his gun, most viewers assumed (incorrectly) that it causes no more than a few minutes of healthy unconsciousness. In reality, it is tricky business to disable without killing."

"less-lethal weapons" - 194,000 results

"non-lethal weapons" - 177,000 results. See en:WP:COMMONNAME: "The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common."

Why not use the most accurate name: Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. That is accurate since most of the weapons can be both lethal and non-lethal. Some of the weapons are rarely lethal, if ever. The line is hard to draw. People die from complications of weapon use such as falling, suffocating from restraint positions, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police worldwide may look for these weapons under the name "Less-lethal weapons". The military worldwide may look for "Non-lethal weapons". So I went ahead and created another category:

Category:Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons

In the meantime I will not delete other categories, such as Category:Less-lethal weapons, and Category:Non-lethal ammunition, and Category:Non-lethal weapons, from files and sub-categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned clause of common name have now been removed. The clause was originally included with a different intention (disambiguation) but the meaning of it was warped over time. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this dead discussion. The discussion was inconclusive, but there doesn't seem to be any urgent need to rename the category, since "less-lethal weapons" is a reasonably common term, and "non-lethal weapons" has a redirect. ghouston (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Macedonians

Macedonian Question and Macedonian name. Also the problem with the Macedonian ethnic minorities in the Balkan states Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia DraganKitanoski (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category has been redirect to Category:Macedonian people, which is treated as an ethnic group. ghouston (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Jesus_meets_the_women_of_Jerusalem

Category:Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem should be deleted and replaced by Category:Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem GFreihalter (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by what? Olivier2 (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the links in User:GFreihalter text to make it understandable.Olivier2 (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the Category name: Category:Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem is for stations of the cross. Category:Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem is for the representations of this theme in general. Olivier2 (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no representation of Jesus meets the Women of Jerusalem in general. It is always part of the en:Stations of the Cross: Category:Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem. This category may have the following subcategories: Category:Stained glass windows of Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem, Category:Paintings of Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem, Category:Sculptures of Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem--GFreihalter (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected as requested by GFreihalter. The category was nearly empty anyway. ghouston (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Flat_categories

Can we please asap get rid of this whole "flat category" mess? The category tree is hierarchic.

First there is a category loop, Category:Categories by city is a parent category of Category:Categories by city (flat list) as well as the second is a parent of the first too. That loop comes from templates and requires a fix.

Second one simple example in Category:Categories by city (flat list). That category contains Category:Buildings in New Zealand by city and Category:Buildings in New Zealand by function by city as parents, the first however is the parent category of the second too, thats an textbook example of COM:OVERCAT and how it not works.

Third, in order to resolve the second problem, this OVERCAT problem forbids to include Category:Buildings in New Zealand by function by city in the flat list. It must be removed, and removing all overcat problems in all flat categories consequently will result again in an hierarchic category tree and thats what we already have with Category:Categories by city.

So its simple to show that Category:Categories by city (flat list) as well as any other flat list category is superfluously and redundant to their valid twin categories e.g. Category:Categories by city. Create a Commons namespace list of categories if you need this but stop messing up the category tree with them. Martin H. (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The loop is intentional. A category meant to contain *all* "by xxx" should rightly contain itself if it matches that criterion.
They're called "flat" for a reason. They aren't hierarchical as stated in the template header.
These are hidden maintenance categories that are not part of the regular tree so COM:OVERCAT doesn't apply (in fact, the goal of flat categories is the exact opposite).
Usefulness? That's debatable. However, for the sake of example, take Category:Taxon categories, which is also a flat category. I was recently asked to correct a bunch of sortkeys with my bot. This wouldn't have been possible if I didn't have a nice flat category to generate a list from.
These categories are populated and depopulated instantly via editing a template. The whole system can be destroyed in seconds. The only manual work would be deleting the emptied categories.
There has been plenty of discussion about these type of categories already, e.g. this mess of a discussion.

-Rocket000 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) The loop should be removed. 2) The category system simply is hierarchical and not flat. COM:CAT#Purpose of categories in Wikimedia Commons. 3) This are not maintenance categories, and thats part of the biggest problem. My example Category:Categories by city (flat list) is sorted into its twin (topic) category Category:Categories by city by the template, this making it a topic category and creating an overcat mess. 4) The same use can be generated with lists. This list can have much more use, e.g. translations so that they will realy help people to find something. Dont blow the category tree up with maintenance - especially not with maintenance that has only the purpose to look if anything is correctly categorized. Temporarily yes, a permanent maintenance structure for that is unnecessary. 5) Thats nice 6) that discussion goes much about countries and the differences between Belgium and Italy. The discussion is dead, the real concern - no flat categories within the category tree Category:Topics and no mirroring of all categories with all their content into the maintenance category of Category:Commons, which is not the purpose of the maintenance category tree too, is unanswered in that discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These types of categories are created because Commons has no tools to generate and maintain category lists, which are very interesting to do maintenance and verification. Most of the time, maintenance is not interested in the hierarchy of things (like many global by name categories, meta categories, ..). The nice thing about it is that they are auto-generated and fairly complete. Those type of categories should disappear once Commons has the tools to dynamically generate such lists. In the remainder, I discuss only about the specific "by city" case.

Category:Categories by city has been created long time ago as a maintenance category. It is manual and is probably not consistent with its twin brother. It requires people to know it and to maintain it and it gives only access to a subset of Category:Categories by city (flat list).

Category:Categories by city (flat list) is autogenerated and tends to be consistent with the actual situation. In principle, no need for human intervention.

From the above, it is clear that we better remove the manual Category:Categories by city which can only simplify user tasks and decrease maintenance. --Foroa (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the missing tool: Does the absence of a personaly prefered tool to do maintenance task justify such changes in the category structure of Commons permanently? I think not. Especially not if something is autogenerated, in this case it would be very simple to export the maintenance information to lists etc and not to distort the category system with it. We have Special:Search and also in the past before flat mania started we were happy with the existing tools. The difference between this two categories is, that one is hierarchic and the other is not but if the flat category is corrected according to COM:OVERCAT I assume that it will be exactly the same as Category:Categories by city. The point here is that Category:Categories by city (flat list) is fully redundant to the existing category, that it will be a violation of our category concept if in topic tree and that it will be unecessary if in maintenance tree. While the existing category tree is valid in the topic categories. If you have a problem with such meta categories in general or think that they are not desired you may start a discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to put this comment, but I support keeping the flat list categories. I recently did some metacategory cleanup that would have been much harder without those categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by country

There seems to be a very irritating factor, so lets for a moment forget the discussion above. For the sake of the discussion, what is your position on Category:Categories by country and more specifically its subcategory Category:Categories by country (flat list) ? --Foroa (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for my personal opinion: Its exactly the same problem. Category:Categories by country is the appropriate category, Category:Categories by country (flat list) should not be a subcategory of Category:Countries (or to be unspecific: Category:Topics) but it is one at the moment. Category:Categories by country seems not well developed, e.g. all the decades and years categories are not sorted to it at the moment. But thats no problem, add Category:History by country to it and the whole hierarchy of 'centuries in', 'years in' and 'decades in' is added in an hierarchic way. Doing this, all Category:Categories by country (flat list) subcategories starting with numbers are overcated in Category:Categories by country and require removel from the flat list so that only Category:History by country remains in the flat list which makes it a duplicate to its non-flat twin Category:Categories by country. The well developed Category:Categories by country will have as many subcategories "by country" as we have high level topic categories in Category:Topics, provided that a topic has intersections with a geographic order. --Martin H. (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of personal hypothesises. So, if I am reading well, Category:Categories by country should be an echo or some sort of duplicate of the Category:Topics trees. What will you do about discontinuities in Category:Topics : very few topics have a by country sub category, and those are, most of the time, not connected between each other, so there will be plenty of holes and orphaned "by country" cats.

The tree you imagine will be completely different than what you find for example in Category:Germany or in any other country. --Foroa (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any problem with Category:Meta categories ? --Foroa (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its just an hypothesis and not for discussion here because it not makes a flat category more valid or usefull. Asuming that the category tree is perfect and that topics realy include all topics hierarchically then a 'topic by country' category tree will have the same structure 'by country' as the topic category already has because any other structure will have a missing category cascade or overcat at some place in the category tree - again: assumed the category tree is complete and perfect, something it never will be. I also dont talk about Category:Countries but about Category:Categories by country, I dont know how you come to any specific country example or even Germany, thats something completely different. We talk about the uselessnes of flat categories here and the redundancy to the already existing categories inside the topic category tree. --Martin H. (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More input

I think that's what we need. More input from others outside our little circle of category maintenance workers. We obviously have different ideas about the appropriateness (and usefulness) of these flat/non-hierarchical/COM:OVERCAT-violating/pseudo-maintenance/index/(meta-)meta categories. I don't think more discussion is going to change our views (I'm pretty sure we are all equally set in our beliefs regarding this aspect of our category system). This is what we call "no consensus". However, we are not representative of Commons as a whole so it wouldn't be right to close this (or Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Countries by category) as "no consensus", i.e. defaulting to keep (I know it's too early anyway but I'm not anticipating any type of satisfying conclusion). I would love to hear what the "common user" (someone that uses categories more than manage/create/rename/categorize them) thinks about these categories and if they find them to be damaging or incompatible to our main category system. If we can get more views from more users, I'll be happy to finally decide on this issue one way or another. This perpetual limbo state is just irritating. I much rather have a consensus in favor of deleting these than no consensus at all even though I support keeping them (or at least support the idea of some form of flat categories). Rocket000 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have been building on the "categories by country" since many years, passing over the "Categories by country by alphabet" to the current "categories by country (flat list)". The need of the category has never been challenged, nor a better organisation scheme has been proposed. I think that the main factors of irritation are the following:

The category names: there was never a consensus about the name. To me, flat list is not a correct name, even misleading; it should probably better be contained in "meta categories by topic" and called "meta categories by country" or something the like.
All those categories in the meta categories concerning dates and history are enormous and upfront in the category , and are probably irritating because for most people, they are secondary categories at best. A trick to put them in the back of the category and/or collect only the top level ones might improve that, although I am often using such categories to find the correct definition and templates for the missing years. --Foroa (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"By country" is a good example. It proves that such categories are needed. However, I'd rather see a consensus that they are not to be created except. I.e. those that have been created "just for completeness/shit and giggles/the hell of it" will be mercilessly deleted. While those that take out a major logically chunk of subcategories from the main cat will be kept. E.g. eventually we might find it worthwhile to make "Birds of Brazil by state" or "Birds of Brazil by taxon" in Category:Birds of Brazil. But not now, and any attempt wil be shot down. Because we have to see first which one is better. There are a certain number of states, so these could be the main content of "Birds of Brazil". But there are many taxa where we might never get decent material.

So a "ground rule" might be: cull any such categories if redundant whenever straightening out the tree, and make new nonhierarchical categories only when needed. Cat-sorting and tree-pruning be heavily prejudiced over spawning new categories.

Because the actual problem of Commons is undercategorizzed content, not undercategorized categories. The hierarchical trees work very well in most cases, and we have a nascent "X by y" system we can build on. To expand it "just so" while perhaps 40% of Commons files are seriously under- or miscategorized and maybe 10% are fully uncategorized and another 10% almost so is pointless. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object neither if the meta categories that have a parent meta-category with the same "by topic", are not added to the concerned meta categories. I guess that this will be tricky to do and should not invalidate the automated approach, which is the strong point of the current system as it avoids many human mistakes and maintenance work.

I agree that maybe more parties should be involved in the discussion, but I feel that we should first address the points above. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is flat misleading? Because it's a category and not a list or because they are somehow not flat? I'm not completely in love with the name either but I had to choose something and people didn't like my "all" suggestion. Names like "meta categories by topic" don't imply it's non-hierarchical which is very important to avoid having people start subcategorizing like they were with the "by alphabet/name" ones.

Just as the parent Category:Meta categories, most cats in Category:Maintenance data structures and many by name categories: they state what they contain and have no all/list/flat qualifier. Those cats are auto-populated, so little risks on further subcatting as in some unfortunate "by name" cats. --Foroa (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but why is it misleading? Rocket000 (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the date categories as a problem since these aren't designed with browsing in mind. It's a complete listing and that is all—the organization is irrelevant. That's what the equivalent hierarchical meta category is for. If the date categories are annoying you're using the wrong category. Use (for example) Category:Categories by country not Category:Categories by country (flat list). Unfortunately, no one seems to maintain these meta-categories. If anything, the flat list categories can help aid in the development of the non-flat meta-categories. If these were filled properly and completely there would be no need for flat categories since you could easily generate a flat list recursively (with catscan or AWB). Rocket000 (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with "i.e. defaulting to keep" - So I can create a mess in the category system and then I can keep it because ~~the participation in a discussion is too low~~ there is no participation in category structure matters at all? No. Just take a look at the category tree from my seconsd example buildings in New Zealand by function by city (or any other example). The mess is located in the middle of the graph. The only purpose of the flat categories is one arrow showing upwards - something that will not exist in an hierarchic structure, a circle reference in itself, an arrow from and an arrow to the perfect substitue category, and - if the other maintenance categories are correctly sorted - some textbook examples of COM:OVERCAT e.g. at the far right of the (temporary, unstable) graph. The logic consequence is to get rid of the 'flat categories' and not to leave the category tree in this poor condition because of "no consensus". There is a consensus, that consensus is old but that consensus is our base for all category work done so far. The consensus is: Hierarchy. If you want to increas the overview over the categories, I repeat, create lists or link them better with navibars, galleries, maintenance pages, etc. An attempt to make something more easy to understand and destroying it thereby can not be a very good sollution. --Martin H. (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confused: What happen to all the Category:Flat categories? I think they are very useful and should be restored. --Jarekt (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Very useful indeed, they are there since 18 months, so no reason to unilaterally remove them because one single person don't like them. But it is the moment to clear out the flat categories that have been added by "hand" before restoring the "automatic" ones. Could you run a bot on that ? --Foroa (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is consensus for such a move. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly

Oppose to the emptying of flat lists ! The work with categories is not unnecessary complicated if we have few "flat lists" or some "Category of categories". 90,99 % of all categories are organized by tree. This other categories are only for maintenance. Who works to order categories, or try to bring consistency in categories, know that these categories are very important and useful. Who doesn't work on categories, and propose only an ideological pattern, will never understand this. --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you not yet understood that categories are not lists. I find lists very usefull, I sometimes use list myself. I however not see a need to change the whole category structur for my personal needs without beeing even able to explain my needs (see Rocket000 above: Usefulness? That's debatable.) against a long existing consensus and without thinking about alternatives. Many WikiProjects use category lists, however: lists, not categories. Lists, because anyone can see if something was removed, thats something you cant do with categories. Lists that not intrude the category structur and not break all other tools that are based on the long-standing hierarchic structur. --Martin H. (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List are not an alternative for categories that dynamically build up as they are created. Maybe the day that we have sufficient tools that allow to dynamically create lists. The flat lists are maintenance categories and like all other hidden maintenance categories, they break nothing nor tools. --Foroa (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats untrue, as long as Category:Categories by city (flat list) is sorted to a topic category (Category:Categories by city) it is not a maintenance category. And thats the problem: With Category:Categories by city it has a category loop (!!) that annihilates any attempts or tools that count media files. And it destroys all attempts to avoid overcat in the category tree, such problems are not longer so easy to detect because all content in Category:Categories by city (flat list) is overcat. Also "dynamically build up as they are created" is also untrue. It still needs someone who create it correctly with the right parameters. Therefore there is no difference between asking editor to add a parameter to a template or to add their category to a list. --Martin H. (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is only a category loop between the simple category and his flat list, it's sufficient to delete the (sub-)categorisation of the flat list in the simple category, and then to create a pure Maintenance category, where to put these special categories (flat lists; categories of categories; etc.). There are some yet: Category:Deutsche Fotothek maintenance categories, or Category:Category maintenance templates. Our possible category exist yet: Category:Category maintenance meta categories. We can use it ! (then, if necessary, we can change his name, if it's useful...) --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that some users have made it a habit to spam out these categories en masse, and in blunt disregard of the existing category structure. (Re Foroa: this is why I think the link in the metacategory template is the worst thing that happened to Commons at least since someone separated the "Extinct" and "Fossil" catgories... it encourages novice users to categoryspam and is the last straw that wannabe categorization "geniuses" need to go into full category kamikaze mode)

There are times when I think a mass ban of users who try to enforce their own wretched structure and refuse to build on what is already established as working is the only solution... but that's too harsh ;-) however, some categories are definitely messed up. Scientific journals are, for example, by now spread over 2 different subtrees which are not really connected and each contain dozens of items that would need to be moved for integrating them back again.

The amount of incentive and work required to destroy the category structure has become vastly lower than the amount of work to correct this. This needs to be amended. Urgently. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing, huh? Haven't looked into the problem Dysmorodrepanis mentioned, but I just checked Category:Flat categories and it looks pretty much like it did a year ago. The pre-existing categories may now be more thoroughly populated but only a few new ones have been added (and are similar in scope as the others, so belong). So I'll assume D. is referring to meta categories and not flat categories (which categorize metacats, probably including those categories that are seen as the problem). On that subject, I agree some users go a bit (a lot) overboard with creating them. However, since we can't even finish a discussion on a much much smaller group of categories that are fully template-controlled (i.e. can be completely dissolved by editing a template and no other manual work except for deletion of the resulting empty cats), I doubt we could tackle the whole system of meta categories on any kind of comprehensive level. Instead, each problem category (or area) would need to be dealt with individually. Don't think this discussion is/was an attempt to rid of the whole notion of "meta" categories. People creating (spamming) excessive and useless messy categories is always a problem, meta in nature or not. Rocket000 (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. It is difficult to get a clear idea about the situation as there are many (hundreds, thousands ?) "xxx by yyy" categories that are not properly declared as meta categories. (Hint for your bot ;). --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some day, some day.. :) I haven't look at my bot setup once in the last year nor have stayed up to date on mediawiki changes. I'm sure it'll take some work to get running again but I definitively plan to due some thorough maintenance of the categories. Rocket000 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Being away from your online life for a period of time gives you new insight upon returning. It just stuck me how odd it is that I actually enjoy doing things like maintaining maintenance categories. Something about the metaness of it... Rocket000 (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this dead discussion. The flat categories are now marked as hidden/non-topical, so they are not part of the main category tree and the loop no longer exists. If some people find them useful as maintenance categories, then there's no consensus to delete. ghouston (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:2008_in_the_European_Union

And many other 'YYYY in the European Union as well as Month YYYY in the European Union categories.

The category and the whole category tree of "photographs taken in countries that are members of the European Union by date" is unecessary. The following points comming to my mind, see also the illustration table below.

First the EU is not a country as this category tree wrongly suggests.
Second if 2008 in the european union is used as a cascade category then all categories 2008 in countryX are overcategorized at the moment because they are as well in 2008 by country and in the cascading European Union subcategory.
Third, the European Union is a political union. Content categorized to Category:European Union is expected to be related to the topic en:European Union. Just because a photo was created within the European Union does not create such a topic connection. It simply not worth to blow up the history of the European Union topic category with any photgraph that accidentially was created within one of the member states of the European Union.
Adding the photograph File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 24.JPG to a category like July 2007 in the European Union would be appropriate. Adding File:University of Limerick - Campus2.JPG to that category is not an appropriate topic categorization or an misunderstanding of the European Union as a territorial entity.

The current situation:

2008 by country	month 2008 by country	month 2008 in countryX
	2008 in countryX*
	2008 in the European Union	2008 in countryX*	month 2008 in countryX
		month 2008 in the European Union
*overcategorization, the first must be removed from its parent category. Red text: deletion suggested, unecessary cascade and no relation to the topic European Union.

Reduced form:

2008 by country	month 2008 by country	month 2008 in countryX
	2008 in countryX

--Martin H. (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support but not for exactly the same reasons.

Today, Commons has a two level world-country structure (5000 by country categories, but will probably double within one year) which is based on political divisions.
On some categories, 116 overcats seem tolerated for by "continent" categories. Continents are not political but geographical divisions and create problems because many countries span several continents and makes categorisation much more complex (would require at least 40000 additional intermediate categories). They make mainly sense for geographical items that don't fit exactly in the political country scheme, such as rivers, mountain ranges, lakes, languages, maps, history ... (see en:List of countries spanning more than one continent)
The European union intermediate structure could only be considered if:
1. There would exist comparable and well known structures (for example Nort American Union, south Asian union, ...) for the rest of the world, which is not the case
2. The structure is mature and stable; the EU is still changing for many years to come.

So the European Union has to be a side category, not an intermediate category. --Foroa (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can not see how this can cause confusion. I created the current category as I wanted to link the European Union nations together which for all other purposes they are (for example see: Category:Members of the European Union). Because as you point out the European Union is not a 'state' per se but rather a federal body that oversees its member states I continued to include member states within the category divided by country.

The North American Union and the South Asian Union are not comparable. The European Union had much further powers and holds teh highest juristriction for its member states. Moreover the European Union is frequently used as a combined measure of member states in statistics etc.

Further to this I can not see that even for someone who wishes to search each member state individually that this can cause any confusion. The category co-exists with existing categories. Deleting it would only go to undermine work carried out by consciencous editors. -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine category Category:Countries of Europe, per your logic this category must not contain Portugal, Spain, France etc. directly but a subcategory with countries of the European Union and only some other countries directly like Andorra, Switzerland, Croatia, etc. So consequently: Almost non of our categories (!!) follows your example. Neither has Category:Rivers of Europe, Category:Buildings in Europe, Category:People of Europe a subcategory specially for countries of the european union. From a categorization viewpoint your approach is simply wrong.

The question is:

Is this correct? No, the European Union is not a teritorial Union.

What is the purpose of Category:European Union, will pepople look for all photographs taken on the territory of the European Union or will they look for media files related to the European Union as an institution? I think the second. Nobody who will look into Category:History of the European Union will have any interest in File:University of Limerick - Campus2.JPG. Thats just unecessary. The category causes confusion, it breaks up the category structure and there are plenty of other tools that rely on this structure. If you want to 'link the european nations together'... well, create a link list, e.g. a navigation bar at the top of the category providing links to the same year in member countries of European Union. That would be appropriate. --Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't break up the structure as the two co-exist. I have set the European Union apart from the other alphabetised nations ergo it does not interfere with them. I also don't think it is for us to guess how people search for different subject. Anyone searching still has the option to search via individual member states.

I don't think that the rivers comparison is pertinent to your point. Rivers flow with little regard for political boundries and so to categorise them by continent is a little more appropriate. The European Union and Europe are very different entities. The European Union does not cover all of Europe and itself extends outside of that continent.

I do not see providing such a search means and grouping nations that fall under a single federal parliament prevents people from searching by other means. I personally make many searches amoungst content in E.U. states but I do not think I have once searched on commons for data outside of the Union. For me it is useful. I am not trying to group them together as one entity I have just provided an umbrella category. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least, we al agree that the world/country categories are forming the main scheme.

I understand the need of Michael, but there are million ways of adding side categories, such as in this case Europe, Schengen, Eurozone, Commonwealth, English speaking areas, Ancient Roman countries, Anglo-Saxons, Germanic peoples, Vikings country, British empire, Dane and Norman conquests, Caucasians, Southern Europe, ... If each person is to start its intermediate or side-categories, where will we end ? --Foroa (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could do so and I wouldn't object to it per-se. It is however very different to have such categorisation over the European Union which is a contemporary organisation that administers over member states in a federal capacity rather than say Ancient Rome which is not current (although perhaps if we were referring to the years in question then it would be so. My overriding point however remains that I do not see how the category in question impairs anybody elses search. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree that they are unnecessary, esp. in light of Foroa's comment. At a minimum, and even if the EU categories remain, the over-categorisation must be eliminated. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J 1982 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Support And if we must keep it, no such categories before 1993. It was not only a name change, OK the European parliament existed , but before 1993 it was mostly an international free trade agreement.[reply]

This discussion seems dead and should probably be closed. The original concern about over-categorisation was apparently because the EU categories had been added to the country-by-year categories. It seems that this has been fixed. Also since the member countries have been added to Category:Members_of_the_European_Union under European Union, then it's not inconsistent if the date categories have the same structure. The rest of the discussion is about whether the EU date categories are useful or not, and it seems that most people think they are not. However I wouldn't be inclined to delete them myself, because it seems that a few people think they are useful (namely Mtaylor848 and presumably the others who have been creating them), and it seems that they are now relatively harmless and easily ignored. Also there's a good chance somebody would just recreate them anyway. ghouston (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as suggested since discussion is dead. ghouston (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Leucanthemum_waldsteeinii

this category needs to be removed and changed to Leucanthemum rotundifolium Yevaud PL (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that they do refer to the same plant, although it's not clear which is preferred. Since Leucanthemum waldsteeinii is currently empty, I'll redirect it to Leucanthemum rotundifolium. ghouston (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Francisco_Viñas

no source, just a wrong license claim Polarlys (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No licenses possible at category level. --Foroa (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this refers to the files in the category uploaded by Ealmagro. They were initially given as "own work" and {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}, although Ealmagro changed the licence to PD-Art on at least two of them. However the true source information is lacking, so it doesn't seem possible to verify that they are actually in the public domain. You'd also need to know the country of publication, year, and if the photographers are named, their years of death. ghouston (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been referred to AN/UP for action. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sailing ships of Basque Country

Reasons for discussion request: As per Category talk:Basque Country, the Definition of Basque Country is a cultural region. Ships preferably are to be categorised bij the country of registration.--Stunteltje (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think also cultural region is of interest, when the cultural differences can be seen in the ships or shipping has an important role in the culture or in the region. But there should as always be a clear definition of what to include. Is the home port the deciding factor? --LPfi (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as the homeport is the place of registration of a ship. Outsiders think that the ship, that is always travelling in a certain area, has her homeport in that aera. Not correct. You can find the difference via the categories "Ships in ... " as subcategory of Category:Ships by location and "Ships of ... " as subcategory of Category:Ships by country. So no problem at all with Category:Sailing ships in Basque Country or, as one wants to express these cultural differences, Category:Basque Country ships as subcategory of Category:Ships by type. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the difference, but e.g. Gustaf Eriksons ships were indeed ships of Åland although they sailed mostly between Australian and British ports, under Finnish flag (neither location nor country would connect them to Åland, but home port "Mariehamn" would). The Basque Country might have a situation that in a similar way justifies the category (I notice the Åland category is red, which makes it more difficult to find illustrations for e.g. sv:Ålands sjöfartshistoria or add a commonscat). --LPfi (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ther is no reason to separate between Åland and Finland, as Åland is an autonomous province of Finland. Here in the Netherlands we have exact the same situation. The province Friesland, with its own official language and double spelled names of the cities and villages, is not mentioned as separate country of registration. Ships registered with Leeuwarden as homeport are ships of the Netherlands, not ships of Friesland. Psssst, they will like the idea, don't waken them up. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be to easier find relevant media. If there is a reason to believe some people are interested especially in ships of the Basque Country or of Åland, then that would be reason enough, unless there is a reason to keep all ships directly in the country categories (which might get quite crowded). --LPfi (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is simple: Ships of ... are registered in a certain county, never by province or area. Ships in ... can be everywhere. No reason at all to confuse people with legally not existing registrations. "Of" stands for posession, so e.g. a Category:ships of Roman Abramovich will be no problem. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category only contains Category:Aita Guria (ship, 2005). I think the significance was that it was constructed in the Basque Country, at Bermeo I believe, so perhaps a construction category could be added instead? It may be excessive since the ship can be found in Category:Museums in Biscay and Category:Port of Bermeo. By the way, there is also a similar category Category:Sailing ships of Galicia (Spain). ghouston (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/11 Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/12

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010

Category:History of the Czech Republic and some of subcategories

Category:Replica and subcategories

Category:Auguste Rodin's *

Nearly all subcategories of category:Coats of arms by tinctures

Category:... in Spain by Autonomous Community

Province x provinces

Category:Animals by country & Category:Flora by country

additional categories to which this may apply

Removal of "rivers by regional entity" in small and medium countries

Cats needing adaptation

Discussion

Arbitrary section break

Scope of this CFD discussion

Unnecessary categories

Compilation of lists

Purpose of categories like category:Categories of Belgium

Naming of categories like category:Categories of Belgium

Massive change in category structure

Flat lists versus topic trees

Avert disaster. Special tag is needed for "Categories of ..."

{{category tree all}}

Categories by state of the United States

All

By xxx

By category

By alphabet

By name

Categories of, and Categories in

Maps by and Italy by

Categories: Categories

Proposal

What's actually being used

Proposal for a new category

Works made by non-artists

Vatican, the Vatican, Vatican City, or the Vatican City?

Categories by place or year of construction

Category renames for quick review - Round 1: Meta categories

Plural to singular

Spelling errors

Incorrect capitalization

Awkward and poorly formed

Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech language in Písek District and some related categories