This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This 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 for the London Boroughs of London need to be renamed to their proper full name.
Currently, it is too easy to confuse them with London towns that have the same name.
This may be why so few images of London have a geographical category.
This change would also bring WC into line with en:WP as per en:Category:London_Borough.
Strong support - is there someone who can make these moves quickly and easily, as they are much needed, particularly as town/village/settlement areas are so indistinct in London, whereas boroughs are clear. Although, notably, they'll need to be set so that in Category:London Boroughs they appear in order by name rather than all under L or R! Tafkam (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The genus Smilacina has been included in Maianthemum for some time. This species should now be referred to as Maianthemum japonicum. --Choess (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new request.
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.
There exist established categories Category:Railway lines by country with 30 subcategories and Category:Rail transport companies by country with 23 subcategories here. Besides there exist halfempty category Category:Railways by country with 3 halfempty subcategories. Inasmuch as "railway" means always either "railway line" or "rail transport company", i was presumed with reason, that the existence of this 4 halfempty categories is a banal duplicity and its reparation (in the way a mergence of a content to "railway line" categories) is no any fundamental change of category structure, but that I did adapt it to the established structure only. But Foroa with support of Ingolfson restored this duplicities. I don't understand what the word "railway" does mean unless "railway line" or "rail transport company" or "rail transport in...", which are names of the established categories. I propose this duplicate categorisation branch merge into the more used categories which are named above. --ŠJů (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ŠJů, for agreeing that we need to have a structure for this, or this back-and-forth will continue even longer. We need to develop a Category:Commons category schemes so that the main structures of the Category:Rail transport get consensus.
First, I will respond to some of ŠJů's complaints, then suggest a structure. ŠJů says that a "railway" is always either a "railway line" or a "rail transport company". And there is exactly the reason. EITHER. In fact, there are THREE different things there, which are often lumped together in general speech, but which Commons should subdivide:
rail transport companies, companies (commercial entities) to transport goods and passengers, like en:Deutsche Bahn which uses many different lines and has wide operations
railways, single organisational entities, like en:Bergische Museumsbahnen with the railway being a company/entity 'specialised' to one line or a just a few (this sometimes overlaps with the above rail transport company structure, but is different in its local specificness and the fact that many are not-for-profit - the example one is a museum entity, which may legally be a company but would only borderline qualify as a "rail transport company")
railway lines, geographical/infrastructure concepts, like en:Black Forest railway (Baden) (operated by a subsidiary of the Deutsche Bahn), which is (or has historically been) operated by different railways and rail transport companies (Note that just for good measure, my example Wikipedia article is called "railway" too, even if it is a railway line (Wikipedia too has not yet standardised all this, and since some of these are official names, they may never be standardised - that does not, however apply to Commons category structure)
While not specifically mentioned by ŠJů, there is also a fourth, related aspect, the categories in Category:Rail transport by function, which I have introduced to distinguish the concept of, for example "military rail transport" from specific military railway lines/railways.
Having shown that the concepts that ŠJů would like to merge together are, in fact separate things, I come to another of his comments - mainly the fact that some of these categories were "half-empty". While it is true that the creation of subcategories with only one or two files or a few subcategories is a bit of a debate point on Commons (some like it, some don't), there are two points here: a) a subcategory with only a few files to start out is then ready to receive images from other users, including those who would not create a new category on their own. There are so many cases when early creation of a correct subcategory would have helped to prevent indiscriminate "I will just chuck it in here" cases. b) there is also the point that early creation of a category structure will guide the correct creation of new categories in parallel and below and prevent more and more inconsistent versions/variants.
The main things I draw from the above is that we need category scheme for rail transport, including such often contentious elements like the above, and including rules for rail/train stations etc... I will start creating one for discussion at User talk:Ingolfson/Category scheme rail transport within the next days, running out of time today. Cheers all. Ingolfson (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's don't change a current category structure which was before changes which you, Ingolfson, have made without a previous discussion and consensus. There is no need to create any new category schema, if the current was suitable in principle. It is enough to include into the prevalent schema few of categories which are deviated from this commonly used principles. If I mentioned that some of new categories are "half-empty", this fact was mentioned as a sign that such a category deviates from a groove.
If any category is defined by a small company which operate one or several railway lines and the railway line(s) have an identical name as the company, such a category should be included concurrently into category of companies and into category of railway lines. It's unreasonably to found any new categories for such railways. Especially when such new categories aren't switched through sufficently with the current categories. If any group of railway lines has a joint name, it groups with railway lines still. Railway lines used formerly to have generally an identical name as the operating company. Groups of the railway lines which have some common attribute (as an operator) are ranked sub a higher category of railway lines too.
If existed the category Category:Railways by function (perceived as Category:Railway lines by function), then is very questionable, whether should exist the Category:Rail transport by function in additon, as it was founded by Ingolfson without a previous discussion. The purpose of such a category was to have been more considered than it was. For example "industrial railways" is a term for special light narrow gauge railways, but "industrial rail transport" is a vague and unused conception which is distinguishable hardly from the freight transport generally. The category Category:Railways by function have to contain only subcategories, which contain only subcategories and images which relate to such a type of railways (railway lines). Category Category:Railways by function pertain at the top of the category Railway lines or of the category Rail transport. There is no occasion to keep the redundant category Railways. --ŠJů (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make Category:Railways in Germany sub to Category:Rail transport in Germany and note it refers to anything styled as a railway/bahn, include cross references to railway operating companies & railway line cats. Make it a meta category so it should only contain other categories and not any files.
Make Category:Railways in France sub to Category:Rail transport in France and note it refers to anything styled as a railway, include cross references to railway operating companies & railway line cats. Make it a meta category so it should only contain other categories and not any files.
Make Category:Railways in Austria sub to Category:Rail transport in Austria and note it refers to anything styled as a railway/bahn, include cross references to railway operating companies & railway line cats. Make it a meta category so it should only contain other categories and not any files.
Ad 1-st suggestion: the whole content of the discussed categories should be categorized concurrently by all of the established categorisation criterions: by railway line, by type of depicted object (bridge, train, station...), by region etc. There's no doubt. We accord that the categories which are called "railways" are redundant toward the established categorization system.
Categories Heritage railways and Miniature railways contains subcategories and images classified by railway lines. That is why they pertain to Railway lines category, not directly to Rail transport category. The contained images are classified by type of object in other branches of categorization tree (Miniature locomotives → Locomotives, fitting subcategories of Rail transport infrastructure etc.).
Ad 2-nd suggestion: As i can see, the main change which is contained in your suggestion is, that should be created categories „Current Railway Operations in x“. I don't consider such a idea as efficacious. The subcategories like "miniature railways" or "light rails" or "railway museums" contain also former railways and former museums. It would be difficult and anomalous to detach the current items into separate categories. You omited categories of rail transport companies. Do you try to come out from the existing category structura and to improve it step by step. There is no occasion to hatch any quit new schema. --ŠJů (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heritage and miniature railways are not railways lines they are railways and therefore belong to Railway operations in x. Parts of them may relate to railway lines but there are very few UK Heritage railways which are the complete original railway line, they are almost always a subset of it. I expect the position to be the same elsewhere.
All "former" railways go in the history category. All museums go in the history category. Rail companies are in "Rail transport companies of x".
There's no point in starting on a journey unless you can see the goal. Step by step is fine but lets know where we are heading.
ŠJů, excuse me, but you are missing the point. When I say "let's create a rail transport category scheme", I am:
Not doing something alone. Railwayfan2005 and Foroa both agree that we should have a category scheme to prevent us from having the same discussions over and over again
Not doing anything new. Category schemes have been around for years. There just hasn't been one for rail transport yet. Instead of "just keep it as it is", we will look at what is there and clarify and codify it
Not "making anything up" - the basic category scheme will be 75-95% exactly the same as what is there now
Not riding roughshod over your opinions - where the first draft of the category scheme is either different from what exists now OR is against what you feel is best, you will be able to make your case as to why the category scheme should be different. So will all the others. So will I, when I propose changing something from the current status quo.
The only difference is that after we have agreed (or at least formed a consensus of most participants) on a category scheme, we then have a guideline to work with. People will not be able to move categories (and will not get into unneeded disagreements) unless they have first proposed a change on the category scheme and gotten consensus (i.e. no sudden changes from you, not from someone who hasn't taken part in this discussion - and not from me either!). In short, it is moving all this discussion out in the open, hammering out something, and then documenting it in one central place. Ingolfson (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmh, regarding the suggestions made above, and after thinking some more - I think I could move a little in ŠJů's direction:
Regarding the railways/railway lines issue - it seems that we all could potentially agree on abolishing "railways" totally, and instead have only "railway lines of X" and, separate and parallel to that, "rail transport companies of x". A heritage railway company that operates only on one railway line could then be placed into both categories. While a railway line that is operated by many operators would only be sorted into "railway lines". While a company that operates many lines and is not specific to one railwayline is only sorted into "Rail transport companies". That should do.
The two above would be the sorting branches for the GEOGRAPHICAL (railway lines) and the ORGANISATIONAL (rail transport companies) aspects. But it still needs a TYPE/FUNCTION part of the category tree (rail transport by function).
Otherwise we have no way of organising, say agricultural or mining rail operations and separating them from other types like passenger rail operations or military rail operations. That is what we need a further branch for. BTW: Contrary to ŠJů's claim, I have not changed that structure in that regard, I have introduced this branch as new. Adding new ways of sorting things is standard Commons procedure, and the Wiki way. As is finding ways of how such a new branch fits into the existing structure, which is part of what we are discussing here, and what I am trying to document in the first draft of the category scheme. Ingolfson (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll buying into the operational types. What high-level functions are there? I've got Passenger Transport, Freight/Goods/Cargo Transport, Infrastructure Maintainence, Pleasure/Heritage/Tourism, Research & Development as starting points. Below these sit the operators and types of operation: International Passenger, Inter City/High Speed, Regional, Local, Commuter; Container, Coal, Ore, Stone, Automotive, Oil/Gas, Chemicals etc; OTP; Miniature, Narrow Gauge, etc; Test Tracks. Into these go the images. All of these need to be qualified by country and have "by country" versions. They'll all need something to indicate they are rail related when there's scope for confusion.
Here's the tree:
Railway operations in x by function
Passenger train operations in x
International passenger train operations in/of x
Inter City/High Speed passenger train operations in/of x
Regional passenger train operations in/of x
Local passenger train operations in/of x
Commuter passenger train operations in/of x
Freight train operations in x
Container train operations in/of x
Coal train operations in/of x
Ore train operations in/of x
Stone train operations in/of x
Automotive train operations in/of x
(something to go with steel & aluminum ingot/slab/billet trains)
Chemical train operations in/of x
Oil train operations in/of x
Gas train operations in/of x
Infrastructure/maintainence of way train operations in x
There is no clear borderline between passenger transport (as a means to get from A to B) and touristic or heritage rail operation. Look at all the narrow gauge railways in the Alps. They are a bit of all. And the trains often also convey freight... I wouldn't be able to categorize my photos according to your scheme! Please don't forget reality besides the theory! Gürbetaler (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gürbetaler - why would you be unable to sort images like this? The examples you gave would simply fit into multiple categories. Surely that is a rather common thing on commons (so many images could/are logically be sorted into three, four, five or more categories - yet the fact that some very similar images are only sorted into the one or two most important categories does not mean the other categories should not exist). In your example, you would simply place the image both into heritage and passenger transport. Or only in heritage transport, if that is clearly the dominant use according to your call. A train bringing some small amount of freight to a mountain village is not a freight train, so likely you would not sort it into "freight rail transport". If it served a still-operating sawmill, you might. The call would be on the individual person sorting (as it is anywhere on Commons).
While I agree with you that we should not make the structure too complex, we should also ALLOW more complex sorting (and provide for it in the category scheme, or the "by function" sorting will have no overarching logic). If the person sorting images / new categories is not willing to do more, he can always just sort it under "rail transport in X-country" as they do now. Borderline cases (as you noted) will always exist. But that shouldn't be an argument to prevent categorisation where people DO know what more specific categories it falls under. Ingolfson (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First answer (more to come). When I look at the category tree you set up I realize that my "railway thinking" is different. Distinguishing history of rail transport and rail operation is not useful as any picture taken today will be history tomorrow. So you will send a bot every night to exchange operation by history? I know, I exaggerate a bit... I prefer a structure dealing with the contents of a picture and there I see infrastructure, rolling stock, staff as the main aspects. Rolling stock describes single type of vehicles like "steam locomotives of Paraguay" and/or train consists and there we could add aspects to the tree. I will make a proposition soon.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add an example which I find very odd. What is "heritage rail transport"? That's nonsense. Heritage trains, heritage operation are aspects of rail transport as a whole. And also miniature railways. But nobody will understand what "miniature rail transport" means. A linguistic concept that works for the big rail world can not always be translated to every detail aspect of rail. When we come to specialized enclosed rail systems like rack railway, miniature railway, military railway, mining railway, forestry railway etc., we should stick to this wording. And also heavy rapid transit is a specialized system (for passenger transport). So rail transport is good for the big categories, the big world, but we should keep "railway" for the distinct systems.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Category:People associated with rail transport. What should homeless people, living on railway ground, have in common with people working for the railway? If you put all that together you can also put the passengers there and as most Swiss people are also rail passengers you can put any Swiss person into the category "associated with rail transport". Sorry, but your approach is far too theoretic. Please try thinking like most Wiki commons users do. Thank you. Gürbetaler (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gürbetaler, maybe we can distinguish between naming and structure here? I am also confused, seeing that exactly one section down, you seem to argue for the removal of the "railways" branch structure. More to the point, so have multiple others here, and I have changed my mind to agree with them. I do not understand why your sudden shift to retain "railways"? Especially as I am not proposing to abolish railways where it is part of a proper name, such as in Category:Brecon Mountain Railway.
Also, I obviously disagree with your comment on "heritage rail transport" being nonsense. Since we cannot simply call it "heritage", we need to append something that clarifies we are talking about rail. Since "railways" has created severe disambiguation difficulties regarding what it really means - you yourself said it can mean everything and nothing, we others had long discussions whether it means a company, a railway line, or both or nothing - we are now looking for a different way of an appendix to the "heritage" or "military" or whatever rail function we are discussing, which is also internally consistent - and "FUNCTION rail transport" has that option, because it is generic enough. It can include a a photo of a military rail track, as well as a video of a military guard watching on a train, a scan of a military train timetable, as well as a category for a military railway (i.e. one with a proper name). Whereas "Military railways" can be argued to be much more limited/ambiguous.
The category scheme in this instance is to avoid a wild mix of "Military rail transport" here, "Freight rail operations" there, and "Heritage railways" in another case, with everybody doing as he likes because he can argue there is no standard. Ingolfson (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add that at the end of the day I wouldn't CARE if instead of a "FUNCTION rail transport" logic we instead agreed on a "FUNCTION railways" logic - no matter what I said above about it being a bit ambiguous. But I am trying hard here to find consensus, and as I noted, I have been told by many people that they would like the "railways" cat branch to go except for proper names. So that is what I am proposing in my category scheme. Can I ask you to consider the issue on those grounds as well? Ingolfson (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more so, I have even tried to create a structure where "FUNCTION rail transport" can logically COEXIST with "FUNCTION railways" - but the fact that a user has vehemently opposed THAT approach as well is what started this whole long discussion, and made me realise that however long it takes, we NEED a category structure. Consistency, if for no other reason than to have 10 fights now, so we don't have 100 fights in the next ten years. Ingolfson (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope there's sufficient files (it's not just photos on Commons despite what it may seem like) to justify having a category for each operator, from SBB/CFF/FFS through BLS down to DVZO (and beyond). Then the operator can be categorised accordingly. This then makes it easy to consign defunct operators to the history category. The heritage railways debate can wait. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I wanted to say is this: Railway as a main category for rail transport is a duplication and not a better wording than rail transport. On the other hand, rail transport is too generic for smaller integrated "rail transport systems". Rail transport of the United States is a very appropriate category. But Miniature rail transport of Germany sounds very odd to me and I think Miniature railways of Germany is more appropriate in this case.
We have to face two problems: The complexity and diversity of rail transport and railways. And on the other hand the fact, that Wikicommons categories must be used not not only by native English speakers but by anybody wanting to categorize media. I think this requires some sort of "simple language". I know, this isn't a simple task to find a good solution but now we are in this dicsussion and should continue it to find a theoretically acceptable and at the same time broadly understandable structure.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add a word about distinguishing naming and structure: I think, the two are related. A complex multi-function rail system can't be categorized in the same way as integrated single-function miniature or logging railways.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a category "Railways" besides the existing categories. Railways stands for a system, so everything is Railways - and nothing. A distinct phisical plant with rolling stock and its operation and a unique company to operate it can be called "a railway". Miniature railways, narrow gauge railways, rack railways or funiculars may operate like this. But the normal "railway" we see today is an "assemblage" of trains on railway lines often belonging to diferent rail transport companies. Thus, "Railways" could replace "Rail transport" as a main category but isn't helpful for the rest. Gürbetaler (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above, I by now agree that "railways" can be abolished / should stay abolished as a part of the category tree. "Rail transport" should be used consistently instead, such as in "Rail transport company" or "Rail transport in X-country" (though some subcategories like "Rail lines" and "Rail bridges" would be an exception to the strict rule to avoid cumbersome long constructs like "Rail transport lines" or "Rail transport bridges"). Ingolfson (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all - I have been working recently on the draft of the category scheme, and I have almost finished it. However, I still need to tweak it a little more, before "publicising" it on the "rail transport" category itself. As I am quite busy in my offline life, and as I expect quite a bit of comment both from you and others once it "goes live for discussion", I then at that stafe need to be available to give it more attention than I can right now. I hope you can all bear with this a little longer, and promise that I'll be back soon (likely in a week or so) and will then continue with trying to find / helping to forge an agreement between all of us. Ingolfson (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, that such changes are necessary. To date I have seen overmany controversial changes among the done improvements. When some of railway lines ceased to be included and findable in categories of railway lines, this is change to worse. Some few other deviations from established categorization principles was done thereat. Plese let us do no any extensive changes, which prove no an obvious betterment. --ŠJů (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is very obvious, that we should be able to categorize rail related media after
6) propulsion (steam, electricity, horses, linear motor, magnetic
7) transported goods/passenger
8) other aspects around rail transport (people, art, modelling etc.)
While we have no problem in the first four groups, number 5, 6 and 7 were a bit underdeveloped and also cause some problems with understandable terms. And then, there are some relations between these groups. Catenary is infrastructure but only needed with electric propulsion. Plattforms are also part of infrastructure but related to passenger transport only.
I see, that many new categories ... by function were created and other proposed to be renamed. Infrastructure and rolling stock do not neccessarily have a single function. I can meet the same flat car in a railway station in a function as "military rail transport" one day and as "transport of timber by rail" the next day. Perhaps we should merge "trains" and what I listed as number 7.Gürbetaler (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) infrastructure = physical plant
2) rolling stock, sorted by type, by technology, by propulsion
Category:Train stations: Interestingly for the UK the term Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom was chosen! I think this to be more correct. But then we are once again back on the rail transport vs. railway discussion. Rail transport station sounds very synthetic, that's not "real language". Usability would dictate to use Railway stations, I think.
Category:Rail transport by type can easily be misunderstood. Logging railway is also a type of railway but this category is meant for different technologies, mostly. Rack railway, monorail etc. are o.k. here, but what is a narrow gauge railway? It just has a different gauge. And Rapid transit is a distinct form of a passenger railway but does not necessarily use a different technology. We should find a better distinction here.
Category:Rail transport by freight and Category:Rail transport by function are very difficult to work with. "Military rail transport" can include passengers or freight and it can be a train on a public railway or distinct railway systems. And is Heritage rail transport a function? But why isn't Transport of Post in this category? Like other industries. And then, bicycles aren't considered to be freight but belong (legally) to passenger transport. Same thing for car shuttles, at least in Switzerland, where several such operations can be found. Thus Transport of vehicles is wrong under freight. And, as I said above, Rapid transit should be included here. I'm not happy with the term "by function" but I can't find a better one.
Concerning "train stations", the official term in the Czech Republic (and maybe it is likewise in major part of Europe) is "železniční stanice" (a railway station etc.). Rarely is used "vlaková stanice" (train station), but is perceived as unusual and unofficial. Majority of countries and languages used such names as "railway station": almost all except US. See interwikis of en:Train station. The birthplace of rail transport is England: I support the English term usance. --ŠJů (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right that many stations started as railway stations, but due to the many types of stations, I think that it evolved to train, tram, bus, post, tank, caddy, fuel, gaz, ... stations. --Foroa (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rail transport by type is really very ambiguous. "Type" can mean track gauge, type of traction, type of transported goods or passengers, type of drive of train movement and organising of transportation, type of a place (a city, intercity, a mine etc.), type of an owner (state/private railways) etc. It's no reasonable to mix all criteria in one category "by type". By the way: can exist two railway, that one of them belongs to a different type technically, but the rail transport in itself is absolutely equal at both of them. For example some narrow gauge railway can be a integral part of regional standard railway system. "Type of railway" is not equal to "type of rail transport". "Narrow gauge railway" (compared to "standard gauge railways") is a type of railways (and narrow gauge track and narrow gauge rolling stock belong into category "narrow gauge railways"), but "narrow gauge rail transport" is more likely a nonsense or a dubious term. --ŠJů (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to diverge into way too much detail. A category scheme / general discussion need only cover the main, "top" categories. I don't think we should go into detail below that, or we will never get anywhere. Where names are considered wrong (but the location in the structure is considered okay), lets keep the discussion there in the category itself. 125.236.217.14523:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see one main problem here - there seems little consensus on many matters. Gürbetaler for example goes into a quite different direction with his attempt to recategorise the category than I am with "my" category scheme, while ŠJů seems to prefer no change at all on most things. Add on top that it looks like I will still be unable to give this full attention for many weeks yet (re putting up a Category scheme and then wrangling over it until we have consensus), and we are a bit stuck.
Can we therefore shelve the "big discussion" for a while (or continue it, by all means, not my business to stop discussion, but see below for what we should do HERE...)
Resolve the original intent by ŠJů to discuss Category:Railways - proposal to remove this category branch
Support As I have noted, I since agree with ŠJů that we should remove "Railways" as a category branch. The limited number of cats in there should be moved to the corresponding "rail transport in X-country" or "rail transport companies" or "railway lines" categories. Ingolfson (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2009 (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.
Reasons for discussion request --J JMesserly (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The city of en:Qingdao is sometimes tranliterated as Tsingtau and Tsingtao. According to en WP, Qingdao is the currently the accepted international spelling. Commons is currently using 3 different transliterations and we should use just one. With the one "buildings" exception noted below, the occurance of tsingtau or tsingtao should simply be replaced with Qingdao.[reply]
The following are source cats and might need to be excepted for operational reasons. Someone needs to check with the BARCH group folks that are uploading german archive images, these may or may not be impacted by changing these cat names: I have not cfd subste'd these. I also left the cat for Tsingtau Brewery as it is a commercial proper name.-J JMesserly (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historical categories should continue to use the name that was used at the time. To change these names to modern name is to attempt to rewrite history and is academically incorrect. E.g. Category:Battle of Tsingtao - this was a battle between Westerners and this is the name all the Western literature has used. To change this to Category: Battle of Qingdao is historically silly. If Wikipedia starts wholesale renaming the past it will become a laughing stock : there never was a German colony of Qingdao. Are you then going to change every article in all the Wikis that refer to it ? Rcbutcher (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my ignorance. The Battle of Tsingtao appears to be an accepted fossilized expression, and it appears in en:WP as the title of the article on the subject. Commons does not rename fossilized expressions like French Revolution to Revolution of France even when they violate guidelines because of this status. But is "German military in Tsingtau" a fossilized expression? I agree that using the "name at the time" seems reasonable at first glance, but taking a closer look, things get murky very fast.
First off, if "name at the time" is the rule, then since the official name for Pennsylvania between 1681 and 1776 was "the Quaker Province", are you saying we should also rename Category:Pennsylvania in the 1750s to Quaker Province in the 1750s? If not, why not?
Next question: "name at the time" according to whom? The one that the germans used at the time (Tsingtau), english speakers (Tsingtao), or the local Chinese? Are you saying we should have cats with names Tsingtao, Tsingtau, Jiāo'ào (the transliteration of the Qing dynasty name)- all for the same place? Why do we choose Tsingtau for one cat, and Tsingtao for another? The current scheme appears ad hoc.
Fortunately, these arcane and complicated details have been discussed at length. The current concensus recorded in Commons:By location category scheme is that an arbiter of placenames other than Commons be chosen, and that arbiter is en:wikipedia. En says it is Qingdao, so that is my proposal for the normalized name. But really, if you have some compelling argument for making them all Tsingtau, or Tsingtao then fine. Cats for the same place should use the same name. I don't care which. -J JMesserly (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point, which is that the current usage is indeed Qingdao, but the historic usage in Western languages was variations of Tsingtao. It is standard practice when writing in a language to use the names as used in that language at the time of the events being covered. Hence English writers use Ypres when writing of World War I even though current usage is Ieper. While the Chinese would not have referred to the German colony as Tsingtao, that is what is has been called in English and German historical texts because it was a German construct. To describe events in the German Colony of Qingdao in 1914 in English would be a nonsense. Likewise it be incorrect to refer to Pennsylvania in 1700 if there was no such entity at that time. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand the point. I just think that other factors mitigate the practice of lifting techniques that are standard practice from one problem domain and applying them to another. I doubt many will go along with the idea that Category:Pennsylvania in the 1750s should be called to Quaker Province in the 1750s. I agree that this is proper from the perspective a subject domain experts (who actually might state the correct contemporaneous german term for the colony was Kiautschou). However, the category scheme must also serve the needs of lay users. They shouldn't first be required to educate themselves on what the various correct terms are for Pennsylvania simply because they want a picture of an area located in present day Pennsylvania. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let´s have a look at that problem under the aspect of practical research in the internet. When I created some of the categories concerning Tsingtau, I - being a German-speaking historian - had no idea that the correct modern name of this former German colony is now Quingdao. Doing research in German colonial history I would have looked for Tsingtau ( not Quingdao ). I can´t see any sense in using just one term ( Quingdao ) when that poses an obstacle to research. My suggestion: Change all historic categories using the term "Tsingtau" or "Tsingtao" into subcategories to "History of Quingdao". In this case doing research you have the chance to find whatever you like under all terms in use ( Quingdao, Tsingtao, Tsingtau ) -Xenophon (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a historian would be aware of the lexographic variation, but certainly kids doing a high school term paper might not. Really, this is a generic problem with search, isn't it? Tarantulas are categorized as Category:Lycosidae, but I don't know biological classification so I didn't know that term. But I can find it using commons search because some images are named tarantula, so I can then traverse the cat tree. Similarly with the variations of Qingdao. The larger question of multilingual support for categories might be solved by sticking the first sentences of each WP article for each language in a navbox with state=collapsed on the categories, then searches for "Jiāo’ào", Chheng-tó-chhī (zh-min-nan WP), 青島, 胶澳,کنگداؤ, 膠澳, چینگدائو,青島市, 칭다오, צ'ינגדאו would all work too. Btw- this is not my idea, and I don't. I think it was User:Duesentrieb that suggested simply taking the article name of the various interwiki'd links. It didn't receive much discussion. My variation is to take the entire first sentence because it usually containst genus terms that a lay user might use in a search expression. Either could be easily done by bot. It might be completely hideable nowdays because searchers like yahoo are now delivering search hits on en:microformats, which is being used on lots of WP and commons pages for stuff like coordinates. It also can be used to declare these synonyms without raising the issue of "spamming" commons. I don't care which way that subject goes, but let's not try to solve it by junking up classifications. A taxonomy is not a thesaurus.-J JMesserly (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A taxonomy may not be a thesaurus, but it is also not a value in itself, it has to be practical. As a matter of fact, a German colony of Qingdao didn´t exist and nobody would look for such a category; its name was Tsingtau or Kiautschau. A high school kid doing a high school term paper in history on this subject will probably be aware of that fact if his teacher is worth his money ( By the the way, I am teaching history to high school kids ). If you look for the modern city of Qingdao, you´ll find it in the category "Qingdao" with a subcategories hinting at the correct historical terms that are in use by everybody in touch with that subject. I don´t care either about the final decision; as you said, for an experienced researcher in Wikimedia ( but maybe not for high school kids ) it will still be possible to find out about Tsingtau. Regards -Xenophon (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the end it is a balance between competing goals. You guys understand the issues and have good intent. I'll go along with whichever way you choose on this. Really though, I think your point about the need for category synonyms is a huge one- I just don't think the cat structure is the right way to do it. I think Duesentrieb's old suggestion on this was a good idea. Wouldn't be hard to run a bot to do it... Do you you think that if the text were hidden in a navbox that the community wouldn't freak out about "spamming" categories with text copied from WP article names? How about if it were totally invisible (I don't know if it would work, but for example hidden in microformat data)? -J JMesserly (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My only interest in this is to create a user-friendly environment for practical research. A well structured taxonomy is usually one way to reach that goal, tools for using category synonyms may be another, and if it serves the aim to reconcile competing goals - well, that sounds perfect for me. Concerning your last questions - well, I may be good at my issues ( being history and art ) and have a fairly good idea about possibilities to categorize them, but I am absolutely not well informed enough about technical questions like bots, navboxes and the like to discuss it with you. But if you find a way to reconcile the competing goals - go ahead; I would appreciate it if you keep me informed and I will look at the results. Regards -Xenophon (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confession: I was an art major (got involved in computers to pay my way through college, and was astounded at how much programmers got paid for work that seems trivial compared to making art). Anyway, the buddha saying is that there are many paths to the mountaintop. Unfortunately, we really don't have a lot of good paths to the content, and the rigors of taxonomies are not especially pluralistic when it comes to alternative rationales for organizing information, so the category scheme though perfectible can at best be only one of many paths. If I do anything with the synonym idea, you will hear about it on the village pump.-J JMesserly (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the purpose of this category. There are many thousands of small images around here. If necessary they could be captured by their dimensions/resolutions or their file size. --Leyo16:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the real benefit of such a category. A small image (small in number of pixels or small in bytes) can be a good image and worthwile for Commons
as there are large immages that are bad. I prefer more a category "bad images" for images that probably never will be used by others because of its bad quality and lacking info and the availability of better images. Blurred images can also be put in that category. Wouter (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about it. When a bad image falls in the Category:Media needing categories there is not a real problem. In fact these images remain hidden for most of the users of Commons. Yes it fills up storage place but I think that the effort in the steps to have it deleted can be better used for categorizing good images, to make nice galleries, etc. The main problem is when there are bad images in a category or gallery. It makes it more difficult to find good images and it gives the impression that Commons contains many rubbish images. My personal approach would be when I see a bad image in a category, to check if it is used in any Wikipedia article. If not then I will put it in the category “bad images”. If there comes no reaction let’s say within a month, of somebody about putting the image in the “bad images” category, the image can be nominated for deletion automatically. The advantage is that bad images are deleted that are uploaded by users who don’t care about what they uploaded. This saves time of discussion. Wouter (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the aim of this category simply could be to know if a picture is small. Similar to the Category:Black and white photographs, that doesn't mean that the photo is bad in any way and should be deleted, but merely it's Black and white; so the user may decide what to do with the photo. If someone is searching for a small image, he could take advantage of a category Small images!
--Frank C. Müller (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of points - deleting images here does not actually save any space (which is why we can undelete images quickly too). We don't delete "superseded" images either. Categories contain all revisions of images, if there is lots of poor quality or redundant images to sort through then create a gallery for that subject. There is not really any reason to delete either small images or "bad" images even if they are not used, or have been superseded. If they are so chronically bad (unfocused or extraordinarily bad quality), with no conceivable use apart from an example of bad images and we have an alternative, then yes, ok, nominate them for deletion.
Without some means of finding images by resolution, we do need some sort of size categories. Something like small, medium, large, extra large. Small are images most useful in icon or thumbnail uses only. Medium is anything large enough to show useful detail, mainly useful on webpages. Large suitable for printing say a 6"x4" photo. Extra large, poster printing size. These could be combined with aspect ratio categories, square, 4:3, widescreen, panorama. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my work with the pictures of the Bundesarchiv I'm trying to develop a consistent structure of categories for the international relations of Germany. Now Siebrand remarked that categories like "German political relations with Turkey" are "a little odd". He suggested to rename the categories following the schema «"Political relations between COUNTRY1 and COUNTRY2" where 1 and 2 are sorted alphabetically». You should know that nearly all pictures we have to sort are taken in Germany and that some countries have categories of their own for their international relationships and that it would look strange to put so many picture from Bonn into them. At the moment I continue to sort the material in the categories I developed, because it's no problem to rename them later. But still I'm interested in your international feedback. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your arguments. I will realize your proposals by using the delinker. I will try to add the category "International relations of <country>" to all countries which are related to this project.
respectfully oppose; the topics are clearly separate; plates & drawing deals with the manner of depiction. also; the second category doesn't specify species, which would make it a bad fit. better integrating cat:human anatomy schemes into cat:human anatomy would make more sense, i think. Lx 121 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the two should remain separate, please add category descriptions to both of them and cross reference the two categories. -- User:Docu at 13:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I propose the renaming of "Registered Historic Places" categories to names in the form "National Register of Historic Places by state", "National Register of Historic Places in Alabama", etc. In all cases, replace "Registered Historic Places" with "National Register of Historic Places" in the name.
Reason for discussion request: "Registered Historic Places" is not an official term, but a Wikipedia neologism that was used to refer to entities listed on the EN:National Register of Historic Places. Following lengthy discussion, EN articles and categories that had this term in the title have mostly been renamed to use valid terminology. Continued use of the invalid terminology for Commons categories has the effect of continuing to propagate the neologism. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These exist in the states of Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: I have finished tagging all of the state-level categories, plus categories for DC, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. I have tagged some of the city and county categories, but many others still need tagging. All city and county categories in the states of Alabama, Connecticut, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are tagged, and some such categories in other states are tagged. --Orlady (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC) All Illinois, New York, Oregon and Wisconsin categories are now also tagged. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) All California and Minnesota categories are now tagged. --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Kentucky is also fully tagged; I've made progress on Florida, Michigan, and Washington, but they are still incomplete. --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Michigan is tagged. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Now Washington is tagged. --Orlady (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a good suggestion if (1) these were generic categories and (2) "registered historic places" were a valid generic term. However, as Altairisfair notes, the current scope of these categories is limited to the National Register of Historic Places -- thus, these are not generic categories. Additionally, "registered historic places" is not a generic term in wide use (while it may not have been invented at Wikipedia, it is closely associated with Wikipedia -- the preponderance of Google hits on it are derived from its Wikipedia use; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a vehicle for introducing new terms into the language) and it is not an accurate description of the contents. It is not accurate because not all of the entities on the National Register are places (for example, the Register also includes ships, airplanes, and pieces of furniture) and the entities on the list are not "registered", but rather are "listed" or "entered" on the Register. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the proposal. In all cases, "Registered Historic Places" (regardless of capitalization) would be replaced by "National Register of Historic Places". --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case I support. I have noticed that the generic nature of "registered historic place" has led some contributors to include media in these categories that show places on local or state registers. If the categories are intended to reflect the national register only, then they should be renamed. —Werewombat (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency with en-wp and for the same reasons we renamed the categories there. "National Register of Historic Places" is the proper name; "Registered Historic Places" is a neologism. --Elkman (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2009 (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.
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.
Mostly agree. How about "on" Saranac Lake? "Saranac Lake, New York" appears to be a village on Saranac Lake, but not every file in this category is from that village. Wknight94 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2009 (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.
Name of the college is misspelled (it's Carleton College, not Carelton College). Also scope of this category seems to be historic buildings on the campus, not all topics related to the college. I propose renaming it to Category:National Register of Historic Places at Carleton College. All images currently in the category are buildings listed on the National Register, and the category is now included in the correctly named category for the college (which already existed). --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Ooops, I seem to have created this category by a typo a while back. Sorry. We already have an existing Category:Carleton College. I'd suggest moving the contents there and deleting the mispelled category. Creating a Category:National Register of Historic Places at Carleton College is fine; it should be a subcategory of Category:Carleton College. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2009 (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 of train stations in the Czech Republic
I support 1.1 --ŠJů (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC) I would prefer 1.2, which is in better accordance with usance of category nomenclature of Czech geographical items at Commons much like at the Czech Wikipedia, but this option is more divorced from status quo. --ŠJů (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for the initiative. I would prefer 1.2 clearly showing that the local name has priority and the text between brackets is for tourists ;)), but I have no fundamental problems for the other solutions. --Foroa (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, a quick semi-off-topic comment first - I feel that the "local use" has limited application, as the sign at the train stations would like not say "train station" anyway, just give the stop. As for choice of options, I clearly lean to 1.1 - there should be consistency on COMMONS first. There is also, at least with geographical terms on the English Wikipedia (the primary sister project, as Commons is an English-language project) a clear convention that uses "XXX, disambiguation" for locations, and "XXX (disambiguation)" for non-location terms - i.e. "Newmarket, New Zealand" and "John Smith (doctor)". I think it is strongly preferable to stay in/move towards that logic. 1.2 makes a logical diversion from it, and 1.3 is just not quite right in English Grammar, as far as I am aware. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rule but disagree with the interpretation. The term "train station" is not a geographical disambiguation, in which we would need indeed the form xxx, province/count(r)y, ... . In this case, "train station" says what it is, and according to commons usage, it should be xxx (train station), as all other forms "proper name" (what: singer, artist, province, station, ...). --Foroa (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1.1. because that allows strangers like me to learn the distinction between zastávka and nádraží in your language. Commons shoudl be educational. --Foroa (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Central European term "zastávka" ("Haltepunkt", Haltestelle" etc.) come up about to the US railway term "way station". It is generally the simple station without a track branching. But the term "zastávka" isn't used in case of the metro or funicular stations. --ŠJů (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.2, I think, that is better, to diferent it.--Jagro (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Oups, mistake, I thaught 2.1 and wrote 2.2 with argument for 2.1... So 2.1--Jagro (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.2, clearly, UNLESS there is an OFFICIAL definition between the two / an OFFICIAL list for what should apply. If some government or railway department makes this, I could see 2.1 be okay. Ingolfson (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This queston should be at the top level as it conditions all the other questions. Not a shadow of a doubt: 3.2 because you have a more rich vocabulary (zastávka and nádraží, compared to the simple Bahnhof or gare)), so you should try to educate people. Note that in other languages, you have no difference between a station and a stop, so some extra information might be very useful. --Foroa (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
distinction between "stop" and "station" is common at least in all German speaking countries and in all countries of the former Austria-Hungary (Czech lands including). A German distinguishes "Bahnhof" and "Haltepunkt" or "Haltestelle" (see Category:Haltepunkt Düsseldorf Volksgarten or Category:Haltepunkt Düsseldorf Zoo as examples), Slovak the "stanice" and "zastávka" etc. The Czech usance is nowise anomalous.
The question No 3 does not condition the next questions. The other names are identical to name of city, village, city quarter etc. typically. That is why they need a distinguish addition. However the names which include the word "Bahnhof" or "Gare" od "nádraží" or "stanica" or "zastávka" or "Haltepunkt" are unambiguous.
Other cases are the names which included word as "město" (a city), "městys" (a town), "obec" (a community], "dědina" or "ves" (a village), "centrum", a point of the compass ("sever", "jih", "východ", "západ", "střed") or other places ("obchodní centrum", "jeskyně", "koupaliště", "lázně", "klášter", ...), (examples: Železná Ruda centrum, Železná Ruda město, Žatec západ, Smržovka střed...). Such like station names have a typical syntax, which is used nowhere else, but only Czech people know this usance. I consent to use the English addition "train station" in such cases.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I've been playing around trying to tidy up certain categories of late, and I'm still not sure that we have the best model for West Sussex. Looking at most other counties, very few seem to divide categories up by district. Most go for 'Towns and Villages in..." which seems to make more sense for the 'outsider'. After all, who looking for media about Midhurst would know that it's in the Chichester district. In fact, the only cases where the district is obvious are really Crawley & Worthing - which are in fact officially boroughs rather than districts! I therefore propose that we disband the current district categories, and replace them with town categories in the Towns & Villages sections for Bognor Regis, Burgess Hill, Chichester, Crawley, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath, Horsham, Shoreham and Worthing, either be recategorising existing categories, or making new ones and transferring other items to new categories. I realise that this is quite a big change to what is presumably a long-standing structure, but seems to be to be both pragmatic for users, and in keeping with the structure used in most other county categories, including all of those in South East England. --Tafkam (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categorisation by Districts can be a useful means for browsing if each of the towns and villages in the county has its own cat. But, I suppose using districts in West Sussex is currently unnecessary while the towns and villages cats amount to about 20. However, considering the large number of cats in for example: Category:Towns and villages in Derbyshire... I think (particularly for local people) this could benefit from a related organising cat (such as Districts in... or as I've done at Category:Essex by local government area). Browsing at Category:Villages in West Sussex suggests keeping the current district categories may be future-proofing for the inevitable addition of new media. Oneblackline (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm still not convinced by this argument. Even as a local, I couldn't tell you which other towns and villages fall into my own district, let alone those further afield. Given that the category system really ought to help users to find media on a topic of their choice, it seem artificial to me to place them into categories which have little relevance to all but the most specialised of user. I grant you that the 180-odd categories in Derbyshire makes things difficult, but I'd maintain that it's still easier to find a photo of, say, Eyam, than it would be to have to work out that it is in the district of Derbyshire Dales (which I found from the article infobox on Wikipedia, although notably it's not mentioned in the article itself). I am still minded to make the change, since while categorising by district would reduce the number of cats in any one main cat, I don't see that as being inherently useful. Tafkam (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much media that relates directly to local government except for the maps of parishes, districts etc... so essentially the cats are simply an organising method, therefore; I wouldn't disagree with their removal... and will participate in this. However, I think we should follow (or encourage) a similar system for all the counties in the UK by not splitting the "Towns and villages". Oneblackline (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (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.
Basically this is just me testing the simplified instructions for this page but it is a valid query (see query on the talk page. I think the difference is meant to be that comic strips are like a single panel from a comic book (eg the sort of thing printed in newspapers). Perhaps Category:Comics should be renamed Category:Comic books to clarify things. Oh! I see there is already a Category:Comic books subcategory ??!! --Tony Wills (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the French/Belgian "bande dessinée" should be a subcategory of "comics" because most of them are books or serialised in magazines. Astérix (books or serialized) should be a subcategory of "Bande dessinée", not of "comic strips in France". Teofilo (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I noticed this when I tried to find a category with HotCat.js (for this image) and I couldn't find the M1919 - I had to go to category:Machine guns to make sure that it exists. --Daggerstab (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2009 (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.
The category name "Bohemian Paradise Geopark" is difficult to conjecture. The most used official status of this nature preserve is "chráněná krajinná oblast" (CHKO, "protected landscape area"). "Geopark" is a more rarely used status awarded by UNESCO. However, much better is to use a name of area without a status. The name is entirely unambiguous.
The next question arises whether should be used a original Czech name (which is usual in cases of local names) or the English version (which is established too).
We can discuss mainly these three variants of category name:
to keep the current name "Bohemian Paradise Geopark"
I myself prefer in cases of particular places or areas the local used name in local language, it means "Český ráj" in this case. "Bohemian Paradise" is acceptable too. The category Category:CHKO Český ráj should be merged. --ŠJů (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference? Both categories are containing similar images (apart from the "electrical cables"). Merging both categories or at least a clarification how to distinguish and where to sort images would be helpfull. --85.182.126.17206:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest merging the category to Category:Stained glass windows of saints. "Stained glass windows" and "Stained glass images" look almost like synonyms to me, or at least the ones will be difficult to distinguish from the others. I might base myself on the conclusion of this discussion to merge other categories, I think there are a few other "stained glass images...". --Eusebius (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a merge, but I think the merge should be in the opposite direction. "Stained glass images" is a more inclusive category since not all stained glass artwork is included in windows- e.g. it can be found in lamp shades and decorative wall hangings too. —Ashanda (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In art in general, yes, but for religious depictions? You would rename all categories like "Stained glass windows of the Visitation" or "Stained glass windows of Saint XXX" to "Stained glass images of Whatever"? It would look very odd to me, I think that for religious subjects people would instinctively look for "stained glass windows". --Eusebius (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Five categories made by LtPowers just for a single image (here). The only file in all of them (not including Years in lacrosse) is that image and unless someone were to flesh them out they are pretty much useless. --Yarnalgo (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the "years" thing. It can be useful, though, to have categories for teams, even if we don't have many files. About "Lacrosse matches", I don't know, "Lacrosse" seems to do the job. --Eusebius (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google translates as "Boats and ships at berth at the wharf avenue of John Paul II, Gdynia", so probably a bit specific for a category name (but then I have no idea of what the category tree looks like). I'll go and have a look ;-)--Tony Wills (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it has photos of plaques on the wharf depicting passenger ships that visit (or have visited) there. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Poland sounds as though that should be ok. Not all these plaques are of ships, so strictly the category should not be under the category:ships tree at all (the images of ships maybe, but not that collection). Perhaps a category name of "Plaques on the John Paul II wharf" or "Plaques on the Aleja Jana Pawła II wharf"[2] perhaps, if that's the wharf name. Doesn't need to be qualified with Gdynia unless there are other wharves with the same name. Then to work out where in the category tree it really fits :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first: please do not forget, thats the cat where any media formerly tagged image: should be placed into via some subcat(s) - now see the mess (the cat is the small bottommost box):
in fact, any image we have, is sorted again somewhere deep into the cat tree via Pictures and images, including categories like Psychology (via Communication), Machinery, Engeneering, Equipment (via Tools), Art (via Literature - Publications) - there is no way to show downward tree, as this cat:Pictures and images contains hundreds, maybe thousands of subcategories
i marked:
green: toplevel sorted into Category:CommonsRoot (the small box topmost - for heavens sake..)
red: where to cut and two sorting corrections without loose any precious information
so it will get sorted clear into CommonsRoot hierarchy-level 2
besides some other bugs
in Personal live via Home, Housing?? - whats that? of course, I can see it on my computer.. ;)
in Industries, Civil engineering, Buildings - via Housing..
in Reality - ah yes, of course, Commons is reality, i've seen it for shure ;)
to me categorizing is some way to sort information systematically, not to send someone for circling around into metphysic relations --W!B: (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you fix the SVG? There's an issue with the text - that is, it doesn't show up when viewing the SVG directly (at least in Firefox 3). I would love to be able to read it. Thanks. BTW, if you don't get much discussion here, don't get discuraged. On Commons I've noticed it's best to sketch out your idea for improvement, wait a bit for opposition, deal with that if there is any, then go at it. 71.155.242.6506:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the image itself - I love the graph, I had been wondering where to find a tool to help visualize the category system. I can't get the tool to display more than one sub-level, although it is happy to show super-levels. I also wonder about the categorization of the image itself, it is not really a screen-shot, it is simply a graphics file produced by an automated database query. Can it be said to have have creative content, copyrightable?
I didnt bother about copyright, i will delete it afterwards.. ;)
you can't get the tool to display more than one sub-level: thats right, thats a problem with commons categorizing: CatGraph does load oly 100 (maybe 400, i forgot, we should ask dapete) so, if a cat is set to "broad", you wont see deeper levels: try any category with only a dozend of subcats --W!B: (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the category tree - It is a bit of a mess, for a start how can any category be 'above' the root of the tree, Category:CommonsRoot! "Category:Meta categories" perhaps should be deleted altogether or removed from the category tree. I have a hard time thinking about this tree, I think part of my problem is that categories are used for two different things, one is essentially as tags, the other is to fit images into a logical category system. I have removed the loop that puts category:Hidden categories into itself for no good reason.
Regarding your changes - I think the category structure needs serious work, and find it difficult to analyze your suggestions. I think part of the reason that strange connections are made is that the contents of categories are ill defined and different people assume different uses. (for example does category:Pablo Picasso contain artwork by Picasso, pictures of Picasso, or anything relating to Picasso, the different uses would be on different branches). If you think your changes make sense, then make them, but also put a description of what the category is for at the top of each category page to clarify the changes. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think thats my point, that stuff should be in a seperate tree, with a seperate root. Its like a database containing two different types of data that has no way of keeping the two from being intermingled --Tony Wills (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, a systematic bug: you see a circle: CommonsRoot → Commons → Commons maintenance content → Maintenance data structures → Meta categories → CommonsRoot - in fact, CommonsRoot should be root and not be placed anywhrere - lets discuss that somewhere else (it comes from one of the temlpates put into, i asume ist --W!B: (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what we should discuss here is: what is the purpose of this cat? i'm no english-native, so explain me:
what is difference between picture and image: to me, as a stated at the beginning, it contains files formerly tagged image:, so why dont we just call it Categorie:Images?
Closing a thread with stale discussion. Interesting thread, but at some point one should attempt to formulate a proposal in terms of how the categories should be restructured or renamed. -- User:Docu at 11:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Closed, disambiguated. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete most files concerning a specific substance are skeletal formulae. Since there is a complete cattree for these files a parellel cat tree makes no sence. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There obviously is a clear consensus to delete this category. So, let's recategorize the remaining images in the category. --Leyo14:17, 1 March 2009 (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.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I suggest renaming this category to "Images from the Romanian Communism Online Photo Collection" or similar. The grammar is atrocious. I would also like to extend a request to my fellow Romanian editors: if you know you can't really speak English, don't experiment with it in such hard-to-undo situations; ask, or, heck, write it in Romanian (English is the lingua franca here, but Romanian can function at least as a redirect). It's frankly getting embarrassing. Dahn (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get excited. This is no real problem. I prefer that users create and fill a collection of categories, potentially with bad names. Renaming is relatively easy and the precise name should be no show stopper. --Foroa (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with the category (I have helped in filling it myself). It's just that I've seen this happening many times, and I for one don't find this renaming procedure at all easy (in fact, having to fill one is among my pet peeves). Dahn (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, the move template is for category renaming for which there should be no very long discussions and generate no major structural categorisation changes. CFD's (here) are for the more difficult/structural/controversial issues. Since it is now here, just propose improved naming, we agree and I execute. --Foroa (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. As per my first post, I think "Images from the Romanian Communism Online Photo Collection" should be uncontroversial. And thanks for the tips. Dahn (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2009 (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.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This 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.
Agree. I named this cat when the parent cat was "SXSW". That was changed some time ago, but the 2006 cat left at the old name. This seems uncontrovercial, I'll give the command for a bot move. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2009 (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.
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.
Thinking that someone would inevitably one day create a category for Mary Robinson (President of Ireland), I took my cue from w:en:Mary Robinson (disambiguation), where there are three different Mary Robinsons. But if you think that another name for this category is better suited to Commons, please feel free to make the change. - Mu (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan, then. (And hence why I chose categories for discussion.) I suppose, then, all we have to do is decide if Mary Darby Robinson would be a better way to disambiguate, and decide whether to pre-emptively create Category:Mary Robinson as a disambig for various people named Mary Robinson (even if there's only one member at the moment, it could make sense anyway, rather than having the base category unsorted). Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2009 (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.
Very bad idea. A much better way is to simply protect the titles with nothing uploaded or use the standard placeholder that doesn't feed the trolls. Look what happen with that HAGGER business when admins started playing regexp games with the blacklist. --Rocket000(talk)07:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what this category is for, initially? As a consequence, I don't really understand your remarks. Would you care to explain a little bit? --Eusebius (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category, as far as I can tell, was created to hold images with titles that are commonly used when uploading shock images. Basically, it's an alternative blacklist. Instead of protecting a title (what we use to call "salting" before technology allowed us to protect non-existent pages), you upload a placeholder image and protect that (same as with the images in Category:Commons prohibited file names). My comparison to "that HAGGER business" was referring to the title blacklist on en.wp. Look at those regexps; it starts to get ridiculous trying protect against every variation. When you put a very visible arbitrary road block like this in a vandal's path, it merely encourages them to find a way around it. And if you stop them again, they find a new way. And around in circles it goes. I don't think that would happen here because we don't get a ton of vandalism like that, but still, there's no reason to copy bad habits from en.wp. Rocket000(talk)01:01, 20 March 2009 (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.
This is redirect does not make any sense. Unsorted is not unidentified. If unsorted categories are unwanted this one should be deleted. Otherwise the category should be reinstalled. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the fourth time you are claiming that unsorted categories are unwanted without any prove that this is not your private opinion. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A category is a set. Sets are always unsorted. The kind of dump categories are unwanted. Delete the category or keep it as a redirect. Multichill (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline or earlier discussion that these kind of categories are unwanted. By adding a move request you circumvented the discussion to create facts. The whole procedure was not correct. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to name categories as "unsorted". Big general categories always contain files that are unsorted anyway, they are unsorted per definition, then users can move them into more specific categories. You may wish to read a bit more on how categories work on Commons in Commons:Categories. Patríciamsg09:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Structural formulae (or reaction mechanisms) are identified in the most cases, but it is another thing to categorize them correctly. While photographers of animals or plants could not exactly identify the object, the uploaders of structural formulae (normally) always know what they drew. Hence, a category named “Unidentified chemistry” is nonsense for these images. However, I could live with Category:Media needing chemical classification. --Leyo19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all media in Category:Chemistry (marked as requiring diffusion) need classification, so I see no point in adding a separate "classification" category unless collecting problem cases under the dust. --Foroa (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, it should definitely be renamed. However, it should be "Files" not "Images" because there actually is a few videos from Flickr on Commons. --Yarnalgo (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for Category:Apple Inc., since it is unambiguous as of today. If another company arises with the same name, I guess they should get the disambiguation suffix (unless their apples are really good). --Eusebius (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, I think that company (and brand) names should always contain a disambiguation since there is just too much overlap (Bleu, Orange, Trust, Apricot, Pinnacle, ...) and no international rules that forbid to use the same name in other countries.
Another preference I have that there should be no priorities who carries or not a disambiguation term, except some exceptional famous exceptions, such as Rome, Paris, London. Experience shows that most contributors that want to use a specific name find "their" name the most important, and the name that carries no disambiguation collects all the items as people tend to use the first name that corresponds.
While Apple computers is well known, Apple Inc is less known and as can be seen in en:Apple (disambiguation) and connected disambiguation pages, many things can start with Apple. There are some web URL that ressemble apple-inc that are not related directly to Apple Inc. --Foroa (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing secret, this is part of the daily harmonisation work, mostly based on simple common sense and majority naming. When I started harmonisation of unknown/unidentified naming, there where about 60 "Unknown xxx" items , 700 "unidentified xxx". See for your self: Unknown categories and Unidentified categories. You might think that we do all that moving work for fun and to annoy people. This happens to be not the case. --Foroa (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "unidentified" is more specific, especially when dealing with species or similar, whereas "unknown" is an Commons-internal category-term that is displaid when the source of a image/file is missing.--Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the species in those categories are indeed known (to science) but unidentified. There could be an unknown category structure, but this would contain only species that are not described and as yet unknown to science. As such the renaming exercise is the common sense thing to do. Lycaon (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A two year old discussion is obviously not sufficient. It is not to much to ask for a proper procedure; putting moving or cfd templates on the category pages starting a discussion and waiting for some time for reactions. Currently the whole thing is a giant secret operation. Obviously Foroa does not have to follow commons guidelines. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that you don't like how these moves were handled, do you have a specific reason to oppose to these changes? Do you have an example of a category for which the Unidentified denomination would be wrong? –Tryphon☂12:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I question whether the vandalism board is even the right board for this as the users were clearly acting in good faith for the project. Cirt (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finn, there are no relevant talkpages because Foroa thinks that a discussion is unecessary plus my attempts to discuss the matter are ridiculed or ignored ([3]).--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First things first: Are the above described actions vandalism? Certainly not, whether or not they are appropriate (most probably) is a different matter, but they are in good faith. Thus, the "vandalism" board is not the appropriate place for this. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are clearly not in good faith. If they were Foroa would not circumvent the discussion. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really similar I think. Anyway, the moves look trivial to me, and coherent with the existing structures of unknown and unidentified stuff. Really no problem for me. --Eusebius (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the "unsorted" category question is different, and don't have a problem with moving "unknown" to "unidentified", perhaps a category redirect should be left under the "unknown" version. But I think it is important for bot operators to be able to cite some discussion or category scheme when making bulk changes like that. As a slight tangent, there are some images that are basically "unidentifiable" (eg File:Gulls_in_south_pond_1.jpg, File:Seagulls_and_bird.JPG) which in the long run will clog up "unidentified" categories as they will stay there forever. Thoughts? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: the problem is the same for many "unidentified" categories. There are places that are totally unable to identify (except by the photograph), for instance (File:Airplanes at sunrise.JPG). The question is, do we consider these categories as "to be identified", or just "unidentified"? In my opinion we should not worry about that and leave the two notions merged, because what is unidentifiable to somebody could be identified by one by-passer some day, so it's rather difficult to draw the line. --Eusebius (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is sometimes a conflict when someone is using such a category to put new (unsorted ;-) images to keep them from cluttering up other identified categories - I suppose as with all categories the category page should describe what it is for, even if it is "obvious" to the creator :-). You are right, it is difficult to say something can never be identified, eg the uploader could one day come by an supply more information. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Unidentified xxx" should be only for pictures where there is a chance that an expert can improve the categorisation. Otherwise, such as for File:Gulls in south pond 1.jpg, they should be in the general category:Laridae (or a specialized category, such as "Groups of gulls", "Flocks of Gulls", ...).
Note that Category:Unknown on Commons has a completely different meaning: problems with the description, license or rights of the picture. So we better keep that clearly different. --Foroa (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm know too little the English and US terminology. But scope of those categories should be better described and the content of them should be re-sorted. --ŠJů (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category is meant for coaches with a cab. They are mostly used for push-pull trains. Those that are part of a multiple unit must normally be put under multiple units. There is quite a variety of terms for these coaches or carriages. American use is cab car or control car, British terms are driving trailer or combinations starting with "driving" like driving van trailer (DVT) or driving brake standard open (DBSO). I can't discover the term driving carriage in British rail literature but I admit I haven't read all books that exist... A native British speaker and rail expert may help us here. Gürbetaler (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose "driving coach" means coach with a cab. But there are two types of coach which have cab: motor coaches with cab and trail coaches with cab. Question arises whether the term "driving coach" ("driving carriage") means the second type only or the railcars and motor coaches are ranked among them as well. The second problem is, how much the vehicles must be connected to be told that it is "multiple unit". What is the decisive criterion? The compatibility toward other types? --ŠJů (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A motor coach is normally expected to have a cab without mentioning this fact. However, the British designation system for multiple units calls them driving motor against driving trailer, but also non-driving motor for a vehicle in the middle of a consist but without cab. A driving coach is a vehicle without motor. -Gürbetaler (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Railcars and Motor coaches are NOT the same thing. Simply said, railcars run single or with a trailer, motor coaches can replace locomotives. Sure, there isn't always a clear borderline between the two but description on the pages gives a good idea what belongs there. Gürbetaler (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the distinction between "railcar" and "motor coach". Both have a motor. Both are a passenger coach. Both can run single. Both can have one or more trailers (coaches), i. e. both can replace a locomotive. What's the difference? I don't know if it is somewhere made some difference, but we in the Czech Republic have a common term for both and I can't imagine how to make some borderline. Does it depend on size of a vehicle? --ŠJů (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is also a linguistic problem. Railcar translates as Schienenbus or Leichttriebwagen in German and autorail in French. Motor coach is a Triebwagen or Schlepptriebwagen in German and automotrice in French. However, there is no exact borderline. And the translations I gave are not exact matches. But generally spoken, a motor coach is stronger than a railcar. Thus, a railcar can't pull the same number of trailers than a motor coach can.
In the Czech Republic have each of this types its own history (in 1920-s came the first ones to lokal tracks, in 1930-s the second ones as fast trains), however the official terminology knows only "motorový vůz" (Triebwagen) for both types. (By the way, is said that in 1936 were Czechoslovakian railways the most motorized railway company from Europe). "Autobus" is only one of slang nicknames of most used class 810. However there exist some "mezzo" types.
I think, we can keep such separation for countries, where it is generally established, but the international umbrella categories should be together. Alternatively (the best solution?), the Leichttriebwagen (Schienen buses, Railcar) should by a subcategory of Triebwagen (Motor coach). --ŠJů (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In German, der Leichttriebwagen ist clearly a subtype of Triebwagen. Does exist some common (superordinate) name in English for both? --ŠJů (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem starts at the point where British motive power booklets only know multiple units and nothing else. And that's a correct view for British railways. But looking at German, French and Swiss railways I know many vehicles that don't fit in the EMU or DMU category (see above: a consist with more than one motor car/coach/carriage in it or a vehicle or trainset with MU ability):
At Czech and Slovakian tracks, as i know, there was only one type (two prototypes) of motor coach/car, that couldn't be joined: ČSD Class M290.0 (Tatra 68). It very resembles File:Swiss Rail ABe 4 4 2704 AB 43.jpgFile:OeBB-RBe2-4.jpg. It seems to be pointlees to create some special category "railcars in..." for this one type only. Most types of motor coachs have its un-motoring counterpart with compatible design (look), but such coaches can be drawn with common locomotive as well. Is it multiple unit, but isn't? Presently all Czech diesel motorcoachs/motorcars and all Czech diesel multiple units are categorized as Category:Diesel multiple units of the Czech Republic, which is not located into the international "motor coachs" category. It appears to me as not to be ideal. But I don't know why to solve it. Czech electric powered coachs are typically a part of electric multiple unit: exceptions was File:EM 400.jpg at the first Czech electrified railway (it is categorized as "electric multiple unit") and electric-powered coachs/trams at formerly narrow gauge suburban semi-tram tracks in the Ostrava surroudings: those coachs are received as trams. --ŠJů (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
⇐In the context of this category, a Driving coach is one which is used to remote control a locomotive at the far end of a train. This is the British English usage. The USAian equivalent is Control Car. Multiple units are self contained-fixed formations with driving coaches at their outer ends (these go in a separate cat depending upon their power source). This is the European usage - in the USA a multiple unit is something different. Single-car self-propelled coaches are usually treated a multiple units. HTH Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing discussion. A full category description was added on April 3. It seems to answer the question that triggered this thread. No further action seems required. -- User:Docu at 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
By country first, then within the countries based upon the local terminology and then create super cats to bring the similar vehicles together. UIC numbers are not very useful as they don't have sufficient granularity in the motive power category. There are some categories in Category:Rolling stock which might bear some investigation: [:Category:Motive power] adds no value. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UIC numbering isn't an ideal utility. It's no practical. But we can to have a respect to them. We cannot give priority a criterion of motive power to the prejudice of other relevant criteria. It means, multiple units (94 and 95) should be categorized together and inserted as a group into both tractive and driven vehicles. But the beginning question (which is disctinction between railcars / rail coachs / multiple units) isn't facilitated by the UIC numbering. I think, they can be differentiated within some countries and can not be differentiated in other countries. Btw, UIC numbering of tractive vehicles includes the traditional national numberings, which can use some specific criteria. --ŠJů (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to understand the UIC numbers as "master criteria", I just mentioned them to show more clearly about what I am speaking. I would like to know why Category:Motive power doesn't add any value. It is the only way to bring locomotives, multiple units, motor coaches and railcars together. And basically I agree with ŠJů that there are national preferences as to whether a vehicle is a railcar or a motor coach or a multiple unit (or even a locomotive). And if I am not mistaken, Railwayfan2005 said more or less the same.
First thing that we should decide on: Would coaching stock and freight rolling stock include motorized vehicles? Are there better terms for the four categories I proposed above?Gürbetaler (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about trams? Is this the fifth main category?
Next step are the attributes that are "normally" to be used with the above main categories:
electric
battery
diesel
steam
fireless
gasoline
hybrid
gas turbine
horse
and on a second level:
narrow gauge
rack
rubber-tyred
linear motor
monorail
miniature
historical or heritage
postal
military
mining
touristic
rapid transit
The main categories should be sorted
by country
by manufacturer
by colour (don't know why, but Wikimedia is for everybody...)
Batteries are electric. Diesel, gasoline, etc are Internal Combustion. Two steps back though. What do you believe to be broken with the current structure? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question is, if the above main categories are accepted or if it should be
locomotives
multiple units, motor coaches and railcars
trams
passenger stock
non-passenger stock
freight rolling stock
self-propelled service vehicles
service vehicles
And we could also discuss to bring the attributes on two levels:
To me the second option makes sense, something needs to be done soon because what we have is very confusing, another thing is that Europeans have all kinds of codes, that to me and i believe the rest of the world is very confusing, on both sides we may have to give up some technicalities in order to come up with a neutral, user friendly approach, i´m not a technical genius in all these terminologies but i do love rail travel, imagine the regular folk who wants to understand what's going on, lets get on it, ProstMoebiusuibeom-en (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see a new contribution to this subject! I support what you say. Just two questions:
Is it o.k. to put luggage vans or mail vans under "non-passenger stock" or could we get on without this category?
Do you prefer the two-step attributes (e.g. internal combustion - diesel) or only one step (e.g. diesel)? In other words, would you like to find "diesel" as subcategory of locomotives or rather "internal combustion" which is then split into "diesel" etc.?
Hey Gürbetaler, I do not know if i´m the right person to answer technicalities like these, but, i believe, on a "regular folk" point of view, luggage vans and mail vans should be under "non-passenger stock", and diesel, gasoline... under internal combustion, if this makes any sense?.
On the "How to organize Category" dilemma, i went a step further and made up a basic chart in order to keeps sections organized, see in Spanish Wikipedia "Unidades de tracción ferroviaria" on bottom of page (I´m active on English Wikipedia also) which i think helps organize "Rail traction units". There is still also a lot of confusion among English and Spanish speaking Wikipedia about Tram and Light rail which i have been slowly straightening up in the Spanish Wikipedia.
In order for all this to be understandable, in this rapidly changing world, I would suggest doing doing some simple "Graphic Drawings of rolling stock", people now days capture images very well, let me know if you are interested, we could work this out together, i´m a graphic designer and have several maps and technical drawings done already (Configuración automotriz). Please let me know your thoughtsMoebiusuibeom-en (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet seen such a thing on WikiCommons but I know them from de.wiki. Yes, I would find it a good idea to have a nvaigation help for the "normal user". Will you make a proposition?--Gürbetaler (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to remove all this subcategories "Cycling infrastucture" and "Cycling routes..." and merge their content into "Bikeways..." categories. For route marking, it suffices subcategories "Cycling route signs..." and subcategories of particular ways and routes. --ŠJů (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree quite seriously - categorisation need not only think of what is there, but what logically can be there. "bike racks in Germany" may not exist at the moment (though I may spend some time later in creating just that and populating it) but it is "cycling infrastructure" yet is NOT a bikeway.
If there is a small country called EXAMPLE and that country has no transport-related pictures except 3 images in "Roads in EXAMPLE", with that category listed under "Transport in EXAMPLE", then we would not delete "Transport in EXAMPLE" as a category name either, just because at that moment, "Roads in EXAMPLE" would do. Ingolfson (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds categories are what "cycling infrastructure" is for, because they do not fit the "Bikeways" logic - I know they weren't here 20 minutes before. But I rather did spend that time creating them and sorting images into them than see a category be removed which I feel we would only have had to recreate soon again. Cheers, 09:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I also did somework in the other countries that currently have "cycling infrastructure" cats, so they as well, aren't just "bikeways" either. Ingolfson (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you. I moved all images and categories of bikeways from this category to category of bikeways and some few images of other objects to appropriate categories. Much else remains to be done regarding assortment of this material (number of images has no location category, many trails and routes should have its own category etc.), but the merits of this entry is already. The relation between "bikeways", "cycle paths" and "cycling routes" is the next question. --ŠJů (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a cycle path is a type of bikeway that is NOT on a road, while a cycle lane might be called a bikeway that is on the road. A cycle route could be on anything - a trail, a road, even (well, in some countries) on a beach or something - and also may change its physical form all the time. Basically it's just a concept + signs, rather than a surface infrastructure. Ingolfson (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have the following comments (nothing being really blocking):
I am not sure that the intermediate Category:Cycling infrastructure in Germany adds value to the system and is easy to grasp by occasional categorizers. Not sure if signs and routes are clearly cycling infrastructure neither.
To come to a more constructive debate, I would suggest that Nillerdk and ŠJů (Germany ?) develop each their ideal solution on a specific "cycling in country" category, and once it is stable, we can discuss it properly.
It might be equally useful to limit the debate in a first round to the definitions, just to make sure that we discuss about the same things. --Foroa (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cycling infrastructure contains or ought to contain a lot of things. Besides any kinds of service it includes urban cycling networks as well as touristical cycle routes. It includes independently traced cyclepaths and cycle lanes as well as roadside cyclepaths and cycletracks on roads. And it contains traffic lights, traffic signs and signposts for cycle-traffic.--Ulamm (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already posted on the Village Pump (sorry for not posting here in the first case - was unaware). I'm proposing this category scheme for Category:Cycling infrastructure. I would like your comments. The goal is to minimise the chaos within this category tree. I am in disagreement with User:ŠJů whether to use a "networked" or a "hierarchical" structure (he's in favor of the former). Please note his arguments here (starting with: I never ...): [4]. Thank you Nillerdk (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant discussions are Category talk:Cycling routes, Category talk:Cycling infrastructure and primarily Category talk:Bikeways. I think, this depiction of passed disputes isn't just exhaustive and correct. The diminutive question, whether is to be in the category "bikeways" one element in addition or isn't to be, means no "chaos". Separate and individual improvement proposals can be stated, but the category structure is functional in principle and there's no need to create some complex reconstruction. It is necessary to sort many insufficiently or bad categorized photos, not make some revolutions regarding category structure. --ŠJů (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2
Foroa has suggest to start the discussion over, starting with the main points. Let's do that and let's keep the discussion shortest possible. The first crucial problem is whether there is a adult-child relationship between cycling routes and bikeways and if there is, which one. This question is identical to: Can a category cycling routes be descendant of bikeways (a), bikeways of cycling routes (b) or none (c)? Before restating my personal point, I would like to ask (especially ŠJů) if you agree in clearing this question (reaching consensus) before going any further. If you agree, you are - as far as I'm concerned - welcome to state your point with a short argument. Nillerdk (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off all we should reflect that in current categorization are "bikeways in..." categories used and established as umbrella categories for all types of ways which are anyhow recommended or signed for cyclists, no matter whether segregated or partly seperated or full shared. This system is functional, practical, intelligible and unified. We have acknowledge that the word "bikeways" in names of such categories mean neither "way signed by cycle path sign" nor "way marked by color lane" nor "separated way for cyclists" (though this narrower meaning of this word exists certainly too), but the word "bikeways" in names of categories means all types of ways which are anyhow recommended or signed for cyclists.
Let's see that categories "Bikeways in..." can have subcategories by separate regions or cities, by type of equipment (types of signs), by particular ways or routes (and maybe in addition by type of way - shared road, trail, cycle path, collored cycle path, shared cycle-pedestrians path, cycle lane, shared cycle+bus lane etc. That's a good idea.). If some route or way haven't its own category yet, photos of it are placed directly in "bikeways" category for the time being. If we understand this system, so we have to acknowledge, that photos of cycle routes and categories of photos by cycle routes belongs into "Bikeways in..." category.
I have seen, that attempt to found "cycle routes" categories aside from "bikeways" categories conduced to unlucidity, disconnectedness and duplicity mainly. That way acquits ill IMHO this once. Even if would categories "Cycling routes in..." filled up purposefully, such category will perform as "bikeways by route" category factually. That's why they have to be subcategories of "Bikeways in...". I propose to keep the current system in principle and eventually to found "Cycle paths in..." categories for "bikeways" in narrower meaning. --ŠJů (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the original question: one specific cycle path or bikeway can be a part of some one or more marked cycle route or can be not marked as part of some route. Some specific cycle route can involve (use) one or more cycle paths, but all used roads and trails and paths are "bikeways" in broader meaning. But category "Cycle routes in SOMEWHERE" can involve ONLY photos or maps or equipment of bikeways (in broader sense) and that is why those have to be a subcategory of "Bikeways in SOMEWHERE". The category "Bikeways in SOMEWHERE" can involve among others photos of cycle ways which aren't signed as named or numbered cycle routes, that is why such category should not be a subcategory of "Cycle routes in SOMEWHERE". If we had this couple of categories without direct relation, it will generate chaos and duplicity, two uncommitted categories with similar content, as we have seen in some few of cases. --ŠJů (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final points from my side
ŠJů, I understand perfectly what system you favour, and you understand perfectly what system I favour. We disagree, but I respect your opinion. I don't respect, however, that you keep recategorizing according to your personal plan (more than 500 cycling-related edits just during the last 4 days) while the topic is under discussion. At the same time you have blamed me for making "chaotic changes" ... (At this point I have to admit that I made a few strange edits before the discussion started, as I became aware that the categorization of cycling infrastructure, as it is now, is far from ideal).
The answer to my own question above: None. Everyone agrees that cycling routes and bikeways (in the narrow sense in ŠJů's terminology) are different concepts:
There are bikeways which don't belong to a cycling route (The small municipality Copenhagen has 350 km segregated bikeways of which currently only 10% are named, numbered or otherwise signed cycling routes)
There are cycling routes which don't follow bikeways (Denmark has more than 3000 km of signed and named national cycling routes, mostly following calm countryside roads without bikeways)
There are certainly also cycling routes which follow bikeways (for example the mentioned 10% in Copenhagen or large sections of riverside cycling routes in Germany)
ŠJů's idea to broaden the bikeway concept to also include ordinary (car) roads which are used as part of cycling routes seems simplifying (positive) at the first glance. Unfortunatly, it has the following serious disadvantage(s) for the users:
Example:
Suppose a user A needs some photos from the Rhine Cycling Route. If there was a category Category:Rhine Cycling Route, he would go there. He would find photos of segregated bikeways, roads which the cycling route follows, photos taken from along the cycling route but not showing bikeways/roads/signs (views), signs and maybe some infrastructure closely related to the cycling route like bicycle ferries, bicycle racks etc. Voìla.
Suppose another user B needs some photos of bikeways in Koblenz. If we choose to define bikeway in the "narrow" sense (road with special cycling infrastructure), he would go to Category:Bikeways in Koblenz (or if it doesn't exist yet to Category:Bikeways in Rheinland-Pfalz) and he will find photos of segregated bicycle facilities, but no ordinary roads marked as cycling routes. Some of the files, he finds, will probably also be found be user A in Category:Rhine Cycling Route, because Koblenz is at the Rhine. User B could also have another wish: To find photos of different implementations of bicycle lanes. He will go to Category:Bikeways by type and then Category:Cycle lanes and he will find what he needs.
Notice that user A and B have two completely different goals: While A wants files associated with an abstract route (through many area-locations), B wants files of certain physical objects (in certain area-locations).
My recommendation of a category scheme take these points into account and can be found here. It is not complete (I didn't even try to make it cover every possible subcategory). When it mentions very specific categories like Category:Vía Verde de la Sierra it is just an example. Oh, and the "cycling signs" subcategory might be improvable. I don't understand ŠJů's criticism of this subcategory, but I would be open to discuss an alternative, would it be given in a structured and comparable form.
As I mentioned previously, first of all it is necessary to classify hundreds of photos, which are insufficiently categorized. Yes, recently I categorized many photos, which have been inserted directly in "Bikeway signs" category (I distributed them by meaning and by country) or in "Bikeways" category (I distributed them by country). It is needed to categorize many of them more precisely: by city or region or by specific way or route - many of them lack some location category etc. Categorization by type of way (shared road, trail, various types of urban or rural cycle paths, cycle lanes etc.) can by added surely as well - I made nothing what obstruct it (just I added more photos into the specific category of cycle path signs or into cycle lane category recently). Let's give our effort to such usefull and needed work instead to struggle irreconcilablely for/against implacement of one category into the second category. Discussions about some marginal specific proposals should not restrain our constructive laborious work meanwhile. As I was saying, I'm not against existence of special categories for various types of ways for cyclists, but I'm against pointless doubling of categories and I advice to base upon the current system, which is workable in principle and can be developed furthermore without some (controversial) rebuilding. --ŠJů (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why we cannot to come to an agreement is, that You did bethink yourself that "bikeway" can mean only "segregated bikeway" and nothing else. Your question refered to "bikeways" and our self-answer to "segregated bikways". However the disputed categories are named "Bikeways" and not "Segregated bikeways" really. I never made some protest against existence of special categories for various types of segregated bikeways (as e. g. bicycle paths/roads or bicycle lanes). The fact, that presently in Denmark are urban bikeways mostly signed only as cycle paths and rural bikeways only as cycle routes shouldn't deny the need to have some common category for all types of bikeways (independently of type of signs and traffic segregation). By the way, "cycle path" is (by traffic and legislative aspects) more similar to some forest or rural trail than to cycle lane. How do you want to take it into account? --ŠJů (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nillerdk, Your examples indicate that you don't understand the principles of categorization yet. Categorization of a photo by some criterion does never restrain to categorization of the some one by other criterion. I respect this principle, You didn't respect it in some your edits.
see the definition Your link don't prove that the word "bikeway" can mean the segregated facilities only; moreover we discussed already that most of cycle lanes and cycle pahts are shared (not strictly segregated) and more ordinary trails are really segregated although they are not signed as "cycle paths".
"Every cycling route is important enough to have it own category" is absolute nonsense. Perhaps it is so in Denmark, but surelly not generally. For example, there exist or are planned about hundred of numbered cycle routes of first or second class in Prague and times out of number of third class, which are numbered only in documentation. Have we create own category for every cycling route, for every streetlamp, for every bus stop, for every vehicle, for every house? It's absurd.
Cycling signs are equipment of ways for cyclists or of their crossings. That's why category of cycling signs should be a subcategory of bikeways category. If Category:Cycling route signs of Elberadweg exists, it should be in Category:Elberadweg surelly and it is impossible to doubt of it rationally. If some photo portrayals at once some sign and the trail, it is no ovecategorization, if it is categorized by both of such objects. --ŠJů (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My final (for this round at least) comments:
Support for the retention of "Cycling infrastructure" and "cycling infrastructure by country" scheme.
Comment to retain BOTH cycle routes and bikeways, but define them better in a meta-description. Not all bikeways are routes, not all routes are bikeways. In my view, the two do not overlap in a way that allows us to conclusively merge, or place one of them under the other. Confusion will have to be avoided by clearer disambiguation, i.e. route = concept of a link, bikeway = physical facility. Not all routes then need categories, nor do all bikeways of course.
Of course I had to add something after all - hunting through categories like "bikeways" while working on cycling infrastructure categories has found categories like bikeways in japan, which was not linked to anything except the bikeways by country cat. In fact, all the cycling-related cats in Japan were pretty orphaned. Now they aren't, partly because they are in the cycling infrastructure logic now. Ingolfson (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a disagreement on some aspects of this proposal. Other categories suggested by the proposal don't seem to have been created or used since. It might be worth to formulate a proposal for the one or two open issues and resolve these and then present an updated proposal. -- User:Docu at 17:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Should be globally renamed to "Universities and Colleges in Ontario", as how we have similar categories for Alberta and Nova Scotia. --Tabercil (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will be moved --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This 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.
In that case, we should delete Category:Virginia city locator maps and move its contents here. I have no complaints with that idea — is that what you think? As is, having anything in the cities category except cities is erroneous, which should be a bit more significant than consistency. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This keeps the town maps and city maps separate while staying within the naming guidelines of similar categories. Of course someone should make sure the images are properly categorized - towns in the town category and cities in the city category. Wknight94talk15:50, 6 June 2009 (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.
You create a new category with the good name. Then you remove all contents from the bad category to the good one. Then you add {{speedy| xxx is a bad name because... (reason), files are now in [[:category:yyy]] (good name)}} so that an administrator deletes the bad name category. Teofilo (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are substantialy different, especially in historical perspective (public baths have nothing to do with spas, thermal baths are mostly a subset from spas). As usually, documentation could be significantly improved. --Foroa (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't quite understand what the discussion is about. Brigs and brigantines are mutually exclusive. What would be the point of merging them? Each category has enough images and sub-categories, and the numbers are even increasing considerably thanks to users like Żeglarz. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are that different, the discussion can be closed immediately. My big English dictionary (Van Dale) directed for the meaning of Brig to Brigantine, that was all. I am not specialised in these ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2009 (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.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This started as a deletion request, but has evolved into a renaming/merging request, so I'm copying it here. In a nutshell: Currently each ship is or should be categorized on Commons with two categories: one category that is named after the ship's name, and one that is named after its IMO number (the number is awarded for the ship's lifetime, and even if a ship is renamed, the IMO number remains the same). Currently, there are far more "IMO categories" than "name categories" because some users (esp. User:Stunteltje) put more work into them; besides, they are doing a great job of adding further technical information into the "IMO categories." This information, however, is not available in the "name categories", which do not see as much attention anyways. Generally, I think it is unnecessary to have two categories with the same scope for each ship.
That's why I've suggested to merge the "IMO category" and the "name category" for each ship (so that each ship has exactly one category, which contains all the info about that ship). The following section is copied from Commons:
1 category tree ("category system") of ships categorized by ship name; these categories are sorted into all the normal ship categories. Only a small (unknown) percentage of all ships can be found in Commons, as e.g. Miramar gives more than 400.000 entries on shipnames. Approx 700 ships in Commons have a category by alphabet (name).
1 extra category ("category system") per IMO number of a ship, approx 1500. These categories contain preferably further technical information on the hull and machinery, all her names, history etc., to group the pictures and information per ship in Commons, concise information as starting point for Wikipedia's per language for each ship
Ibn Battuta's criticism of the current situation:
2 identical category trees/systems are additional work (as compared to one)
two identical categories per ship have to be created
if images are not directly sorted into the category, they later have to be moved twice - once for each category tree/system (e.g., at the moment: Category:IMO 8811986 contains both the identical category Category:Nadieżda (ship) and image:Rotation of S2010024.jpg, which (along with half a dozen other images) is also in Category:Nadieżda (ship) - so someone needs to take it out etc. Check a few categories to see that this is by not an exceptional case, but happens all the time. I've left it in there as an illustration for the time being.)
most people will not find the IMO categories => so they don't have access to the additional information provided there
Stunteltjes respons:
creating description pages per ship is seldom useful in Commons, unless things are to be extra described.
the IMO categories were initially intended as a tool to group uploaded pictures of a ship with different names. Grouping ships resulted in categorie(s) by shipname(s), new one's to be created if they didn't exist. The IMO category contains now subcategories of ships by alphabet (and the pictures of the ship in that subcategory can be easily withdrawn from the IMO category) together with (a) picture(s) of that ship under (another) different name(s).
as in Commons categories with an single file are not supported, added extra information will give the IMO category even more reason to exist. It is a tool to supply conciced technical information of a ship, together with her history, as starting point when someone starts to work on an ship-wiki
Ibn Battuta's "solution" (= work in progress):
rename all ship categories to "ship name, IMO number" (or similar), then categorize them into all the normal ship categories and have all the information available to all users
Stunteltje's criticism of Ibn Battuta's "solution":
as it is done so far, users will find the IMO number in the categories and are by then aware of the IMO existence
not all people know about IMO numbers and/or understand how to name them => users may create categories, which would have to be renamed
E-facts (as a new shipname) are to be changed in or added to an number of categories by alphabet, not in single IMO category
in case of a new name on a ship: the category by alphabet is not only to be renamed, but all gathered technical and historical information of a ship is to be added
Ibn Battuta's response to Stunteltje's criticism:
It won't be much more work (if any) than the current work of linking name and IMO categories
Besides, we have far more IMO than name categories, so chances are that not so many users ever have to create new categories... because the correct categories will often pre-exist.
As far as I can tell, the proposed compromise does not bring improvement, simplification or less work, so I would suggest, as the majority I presume; keep the current implementation. --Foroa (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Foroa, the proposed Category:ship name, IMO number does not improve with situation. There is a single unique identifier for a ships hull, the IMO number. A ship can be sold many times in its life and have its name changed as in one of the examples given above Category:IMO_5183364. Having a Category:IMO number and separate Category:ship name seems the simple logical choice which is probably why it was created in the first place. In Using Category:IMO_5183364, if we change to the proposed solution the current 4 categories for this ship
This IMHO just does not seem like a logical way to categorize ships, we are forcing together two different pieces of information into a single category name. I think it will be confusing to new users and cause more category rename issues as new users will probably create new categories using the Category:ship name since it's the most obvious. And you lose the ability through the category system to see all of the names of a ship by just viewing the Category:IMO number, you will have to search by the IMO number. I don't see that there is any problem at all with the current category system. It's logical, it's working and I don't see the proposed system adding any additional value. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised that the same argument keeps coming up: A ship can have different names, but one IMO number. We all know that. It's like towns which are renamed. To my knowledge, we do not usually have different categories for towns under different names--simply because we do not have enough materials for two or more categories. If, however, we do, we have two or more sub-categories and yet one common super-ordinate category. As mentioned before, I don't see ships any different from towns or animals or whatever: There should be one super-ordinate category (the hull) and then those who like can play with subcategories as much and as long as they want. (I hope we all agree on this? At least I myself find it totally useless to search content for the same ship under separate categories for separate names if they're not somehow linked. And again, so far, I haven't seen a single example where such a system was used.) It wouldn't change anything about the super-ordinate level. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accordingly, the four (five) categories mentioned above (because they are lacking a superordinate name category--not such a good example!) would change simply to:
Category:SS Wisconsin (sub-category of Kapitan K. Maciejewicz - b/c it is the same ship!)
Category:SS Fryderyk Chopin (would also be a sub-category of Kapitan K. Maciejewicz; but as it's empty, there's no use in having this category)
So, as mentioned before, we'd have still exactly one category at the superordinate level, and however many sub-categories that people want to have. The only change would be that the material in the IMO category actually becomes accessible to Commons users because they look for ship names and not for numbers. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that bother me I guess is combining two different pieces of information within a single category name. And in your scenario which ship name do we use in the category name with the IMO #, the first, last? How will someone who is not familiar with this particular category naming convention know how to correctly create a new category name since its kind of non standard. I would think that we will get a lot of Category:Ship Name categories which will then have to be changed to the Ship Name, IMO version. It seems to me that a category should identify a specific aspect or description for the images and combining two of these together just does not seem to match the logic of all of the other categories on Commons. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't need Commons for occupational therapy. I stated, as several other folks, my arguments in the beginning of the started as a deletion request, and have seen since then not a single change. Hence, I will not repeat my self in an attempt to exhaust the audience. --Foroa (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Captain-tucker, regarding names: It's the same discussion as for any Wikipedia ship article (and there, too, is for 99% of all ships exactly one article, not four or "one for an IMO number and one for a name" or something like that). The standard seems to be the most recent name or the name under which the ship is the most well-known. And in case you wonder: Yes, if it works for dozens of Wikipedias, I don't think it's too difficult for Commons. Regarding "non standard": As I said before, if a category system is not standard, people risk not finding it. That's exactly why I see a problem with the IMO system: It is effectively "hiding" information from the average user. Regarding "two" aspects, I can only repeat myself (again): The IMO number refers to one specific hull. In addition, there is (or should be) one "name category" for each specific hull (in your example, it is lacking, so it's actually not a good example!). These two categories are not "two aspects"--they both refer to the exact same thing, namely the same hull. It's like having category:Dog and category:Canis lupus familiaris - one is the ordinary word for it (in English), one is the scientific (Latin) version. If you want, you can have sub-categories, but "dog" and "Canis lupus familiaris" are still identical. Now you can add more technical information into category:Canis lupus familiaris (which most ordinary users will not find without the link from category:Dogs!)... but that doesn't change anything: they still refer to identical content. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that a possible solution would be to just add this IMOcat template to all of the current ship images and keep the existing category structure. This provides users with a pointer to the IMO info so that it's not hidden and we don't have the change the category system causing more work and change to a system that IMHO is more confusing and does not match the logical structure of Commons category architecture. We keep what appears to be the consensus category structure and users are informed that the IMO numbering scheme exists and there is a tag on each ship image pointing them to that category. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majority for keeping as is, no accepted alternatives have been formulated
I think we won't be able to rely on a merge, there's about any kind of work of art in the category currently. Fortunately, there are not too many files. --Eusebius (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given what seems to be consensus here, including the category creator, I've cleared out the category & nominated it for (belated) speedy deletion. Almost half of it was photos of artists. The rest was very scattershot: some appeared to have rights issues; nothing in it actually belonged in Category:Artist's impression, but maybe someone else removed those before I got there. - Jmabel ! talk19:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bicycle road signs" is unclear, it may be wrong perceived as "Bicycle / road signs" instead as "Bicycle road / signs".
A current system of categorization uses a word "bikeway" as a generall term for all forms of ways for cyclists. Signs contained in above-mentioned categories pertain only to one specific form of them (one specific way of marking, different for example from cycle lanes). "Cycle path" is most unambiguous term, which is in some coutries even an official term. "Bicycle road" is apposite only for some of cycle paths.
I also prefer that this be discussed in the category scheme. This group of categories is still "young", so let us deal with it there, and sort out an agreement. I will spend some more time on the weekend looking at the above question of ŠJů and decide what I would suggest is best in case of the signs / whether I agree or disagree with ŠJů - but let's discuss it at the category scheme page. Ingolfson (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think any native English speaker would misunderstand "Bicycle road signs" as "Bicycle / road signs", but I have a question: is the category intended to include or exclude signs on a road that warn cars of a bicycle crossing? If exclude, where would those fit this scheme? - Jmabel ! talk18:32, 30 August 2009 (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.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This 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.
would it be possible to at least have a redirect so that those who know it by the old name will be able to find the new page? I only ask that, because i have several times in the past tried to add an image to a category (or create a category) using the scientific name that a zoo used on their sign and so on, only to find it was under a completely different scientific name else where on commons.. --Ltshears (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't a clue about the spelling, but I suppose the best course of action is to decide upon an authoritative source (or sources) to follow for spelling disputes and to document it somewhere. I have no objection to renaming this one, but can Wikipedia be trusted as an authoritative source ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect these are still under copyright in Germany because while Robert Wiene died 1938, Erich Pommer died 1966 and Hans Janowitz died 1954, so earliest PD-date should be 2036. Exceptions might be posters that were made in the United States using work wholly not derived from the film creators' work. --84user (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: every person in the crew must be dead before a film is in the public domain? The director is Robert Wiene (d. 1938). We didn't publish the screeplay text, so the writer Erich Pommer is not part of the question (anyway I dubt he retained the rights for the screenplay, it was not usual at that time). --Marcok (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not every person in the crew. But the three main creators: director, cinematographer and screenplay. I read that this was the "custom" on Commons for German films, but now I cannot find where I read it. I am asking this on Commons talk:Licensing. 84user (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article 65(2) of the German copyright law says: In the case of cinematographic works and works which are produced in a similar way to cinematographic works, copyright shall expire 70 years after the death of the longest-living if the following persons: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogues, the composer of the music composed for the cinematographic work in question.Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This means that these images are still copyright in Germany. (Cameraman Willy Hameister died in 1938, but screenwriter Hans Janowitz died in 1954, so copyright would last until 2024)
84user (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing thread: there are still files in the category. If more should be deleted, please use the usual file deletion process. -- User:Docu at 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Second, the categorization of literature based on the assumption that literature is, first of all, what is sold at the book market(?), doesn’t seem to me a very good idea.
I think the category is supposed to be about the book market, that is, the commercial trade of books as such. This does not seem very useful, as it will contain almost all book-related categories. I would not mind a category "book markets", that does what I originally thought this category does, namely show markets for (used) books. --rimshottalk06:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First thing: This is a field of studies - book history, you can take courses at universities, secondly I began with it to cover statistics etc. like these. --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of Literature (Drama, oral traditions) is not part of the book market. The book market is rather a commercial enterprise among other markets like car manufacturing, banking... --Olaf Simons (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"are all elements of the book market literature?" - that depends on your concept of literature. The book market is everything from fiction to sciences and religion. I'd say literature is part of the market. Yet literature is not entirely a sub-category, only part of the literary production is paper based, printed in books, and that part (basically fiction) is sold on the book market. --Olaf Simons (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One way would be to put a see also to both category pages and uncat Category:Literature from Category:Book market. On the other hand, Literature as a knowledge sector is a object or subject of the study field book market and all literature is a potential object of the market sector book market. Are E-books and hear books parts of the book market? --Diwas (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Are E-books and hear books parts of the book market?" - good question. I suppose the book traders hope these things will remain their business. For the moment the publishing houses have the rights on most texts, and the publishing business is to a good extent a business of rights. --Olaf Simons (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despair and desperation can be two different things. Despair is mainly when you've given up hope, and while desperation can mean the same thing it can also mean "extreme recklessness, reckless fury" and so on, usually "arising from despair". So I guess desperation is what happens when you've despaired and you're desperate? ... such a confusing language, English.
Point is, while it's possible for them to mean the same thing they can also mean different things. I guess category separation makes sense. -- Editor at Large • talk05:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The equal category to this one has been deleted from Wikipedia a long time ago: see the deletion request. The final criteria was that "Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is". The same criteria can be applied here.
Note that this deletion request is ony about the category in itself, none of the images in it (as long as they have good licences) or subcategories by people's name are being proposed for deletion --Belgrano (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has no POV restrictions as the purpose of categories is to find items in the first place. If the category dictators is not deemed "politically" correct, another name should be proposed as anyway, we need some sort of dictator category. --Foroa (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually: Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view states that the neutral point of view concept does not apply to images in themselves. For instance a stamp of Hitler and Mossolini is clearly favourable to them, and a comic book parody is clearly desfavourable; what the policy says is that such things are ignored and only the copyright is considered. However, it has never been stated that NPOV does not exist on Commons. That very same policy states that neutrality of description shold be aimed. And considering that categories are not an inherent element of image files but part of the structure builded around them, then I see no reason to allow them to be based on non-neutral criteria Belgrano (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in favour of deleting this category for the reason that is is difficult to qualify who is a dictator, with the exception of Roman dictators who constitute a separate category anyway. Most categories on Commons are rather concrete, such as peoples' year of birth, occupation, where they're from and such, things that don't leave much to opinion. But for someone to qualify as a dictator all that is really required is a statement or accusation, right? Franklin Delano Roosevelt was accused of being a dictator; it's even mentioned on English Wikipedia article New Deal, yet he's not in the category for whatever reason. Who are the editors of Wikimedia Commons that some appoint themselves judges over who is and who is not a dictator? Essentially I endorse deleting it for the same reason as stated above "Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is."
However it is not accurate to say that the dictator cateogry has truly been deleted from Wikipedia because although it has been deleted from English Wikipedia, it does exist on twelve other Wikipedias (a minority to be sure), namely Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan , Spanish, Basque, Finnish, Galician, Latin, Dutch, Romanian, and Slovene Wikipedia. Homo lupus (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless we are talking about certain Roman magistrates who unambiguously took the title of "dictator", this is too POV. Also, someone searching for a particular image is more likely to look in other ways. Jonathunder (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really against the deletion, but knowing Commons, this category will reappear in one form or another. Maybe we could imagine to rename it to (in)famous leaders, contested country leaders, ... --Foroa (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed close:Deleted Violates Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view because of the difficulty of agreeing what individuals to include in the category. Users searching for specific individuals will still be able to find them elsewhere, whilst Category:Dictatorship can serve for any generic media around the concept of dictatorship. Finally, users wanting to find out who may be considered a dictator can and should use Wikipedia. Rd232 (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC) ~~~~[reply] Done Closed per proposal.
Industrial rail transport is rail transport outside of the "normal" rail network, such as on factory grounds, within a mine, etc... often without a railway line at all (such as just moving rail vehicles from one hall of a company to another). It is much more specific than the genereic "freight rail transport", and as such far from "pointless" (what is the deal with opposition against more specific categories - if a file also applies to a more generic category, it can still be sorted there too!).
Also it is a "concept" - industrial rail transport is not a specific Category:Industrial railways - and as ŠJů himself called for the top category "railways" to be abolished as a duplicate system recently, I do not quite understand why he feels it is okay to use a specific category like industrial railways here to replace the concept category.
Finally, "industrial rail" and "industrial railways" gets you loads of hits on google. The fact that this category is called "industrial rail transport" is a function of consistency with parent categories and not an "artificially created term" in the sense of "someone just made this up, it is not established generally". It is quite well established in Category:Rail transport and Category:Industry. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Industrial railways are non-public railways. However, there have been many industrial railways that have finally become public railways. And, the term "non-public" depends on national legislation. Thus, a little railway turning its circles in a park or the like may be regarded as "non-public" from a legal point of view...
I agree with Ingolfson as to what an "Industrial railway" is, basically a works railway in the grounds of factories, port etc, so I have no problems as to what it is and what it should contain. However I disagree vehemently with the use of the term "Industrial rail transport" as its name. With regards to ghits "Industrial railways" produces 12000 ghits with the restrictive search terms whilst the same search for "Industrial rail transport" produces just under 200, which suggests that "Industrial rail transport" is the more generally used and understood term. My temptation is to simply echo with ŠJů and call "Industrial rail transport" an artificial construction in order not to use the word railway in the title, but I suspect that to do so will just fall on deaf ears. By the logic of being consistent with the Commons naming scheme Ingolfson is correct
I was directed here I guess because of what I wrote on Foroa's talk page, forgive me if I repeat myself a little here. Commons exists as a service to the various wiki projects, and the categorisation scheme exists as a tool to editors of those projects. Without being of utility to those editors however perfect consistent and logical the categorisation becomes then Commons and the categorisation scheme may as well not exist.
Names of systems, organisations, things have a semantic, cultural and historical weight which might not at all be logical and consistent, while every effort should be made to be logical and consistent what Ingolfson is trying to do is to try and remake the world in the image of Commons, rather then reflect the world as it is. Ingolfson allow me to ask you this, imagine for a moment that Commons did not exist and you was not the champion of this naming scheme. Now imagine that you wished to find a picture of factory, port, mine railways using google, what search term would you use? Industrial rail transport? are you sure.
The names we use should and where possible parallel those used in en:wiki (for bot categorisation if nothing else), they should be accessible to casual users of Commons looking quickly for a file to illustrate an article, they should not create an artificial nomenclature used on Commons but no where else and they should not be uglier then need be.KTo288 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Gürbetaler, I do it myself, but I think you have to agree, that any clarification in the intro as to how a category is to be used, points to an intrinsic weakness in the choice of name for a category.KTo288 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"that any clarification in the intro as to how a category is to be used, points to an intrinsic weakness in the choice of name for a category." So we can just have "railways" and "rail transport" both, and it will sort itself out, without explanation? Speaking bluntly, expecting a two/three word category name to always have to be totally un-ambigious is a very tall order. Ingolfson (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my whole insistence on the consistency: I understand that "general usage" can diverge from a consistent system, because it grows organically, rather than logically. However, if we use that as Commons logic (i.e. we follow "general usage") then we need to rename the whole category structure. Outside of Commons, the usage is clearly "railways" for the whole shebang, rather than "rail transport". But we call it rail transport anyways, because we are an archival project that needs a more rigorous structure than one that has grown organically with all its inconsistencies.
Also, using categories "industrial railways" logically leads to more and more new "XYZ railways" categories popping up - which is already happening, to my frustration (such as Category:Double-line railways) often created by the same user who some months back asked for Category:Railways to be removed as a duplicate structure. Now it's all coming back. I once proposed to make a distinction between "rail transport" AND "railways" via explanatory text, and keep both, one sitting below the other. Also opposed - by the same user. Apparently, a muddle of both naming systems is better.
Now regarding the user-friendlieness issue. I see little problem with that generally - that are what redirects, explanations etc... are for. We have a technical structure in place that will easily move a searching user into the right direction. We can also assume that anyone who has an attention span worth dealing with will be able to navigate logically, and not be shocked and leave, upon encountering that on Commons, what he expected to be called "Industrial railways" is called "Industrial rail transpport". Ingolfson (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's the closest I'll get to an admission that Industrial railways' is the proper name for this topic, and be satisfied with that. I was in the process of writing of a rebuttal, which was just getting longer and longer and which on re-reading was just so much special pleading. Basically I find Industrial rail transport ugly, artificial and inelegant. And sorry about the cheap quip.KTo288 (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category is only duplicate of Category:Narrow gauge railways. "Narrow gauge railways" can mean only "narrow gauge railway lines" (a railway company cannot be "narrow gauge" and it would be pointless to categorize railway companies by gauge). --ŠJů (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I agree with you that this is just a duplicate of Category:Narrow gauge railways. Since we (including your vote) decided that "railways" should be avoided, I have proposed a move of the Category:Narrow gauge railways over to --> Category:Narrow gauge railway lines. That would also nicely resolve our dispute over whether "railways"-name categories should be in the "railway lines" parent cat, because then we would have only "narrow gauge railway lines" as a name.
It was decided (after the wikipedias) that "railways" categories should not prove umbrella categories of the whole theme of rail transport. But the world "railways" should be used in names of categories by type of railway ("industrial railway" is a clear terminus technicus, "industrial rail transport" is an incompatible and obscure neologism) and in names of categories which categorize specific railways by type.
The reason why the term "railways" was problematic is its ambiguity ("a railway line" as the authentic meaning and "a railway company" as the metonymic derivated meaning). I (as a no-native user of English) perceive a word "way" as clear base of the word "railway", but i can understand, that the original meaning of the word can be almost displaced and forgotten in some of English-speaking countries.
In case of categories of railways by type, there is no fear of ambiguity: the company cannot be "narrow gauge". "Narrow gauge railways" is an unambiguoous, exceptable and standard term. I never agreed to leave it. Category names shouldn't be superfluously euphuistic and complicated, if there exists some simpler and more established term.
The idea of formal unification of category names is useful, but it shouldn't be implemented ad absurdum, at the expense of idea of utmost simple, expectable and usual names. It is necessary to respect a common and technical language and not to create some "newspeak" here. In additional, it is undesirable to break the consistency toward en-wiki and other wikipedias (see en:Category:Narrow gauge railways) needlesly. I think, the category structure of en:Category:Railway lines at en-wikipedia is quite reasonable and we should result from it here. --ŠJů (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not always clear, what a "narrow gauge railway" is. Most people associate it with "narrow gauge railway company", e.g. Rhätische Bahn. This seems clear. But then, what is Berninabahn. It was a railway company once. Now it is a railway line of Rhätische Bahn. Should we list Berninabahn under narrow gauge railways together with Rhätische Bahn? And then, what is the Cerdagne line of SNCF? A railway or a railway line? I think, "railway line" is quite clear, "railway" may have different meanings but is nearer to "company" than to "line".-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to point to Wikipedia is no argument in my view - if we use inconsistency on another project to keep it inconsistent here, we will never remove this needless duplication. Which I in the past felt you were quite against, by the way. Ingolfson (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My past request aimed to an elimination of a unreasonable duplicity. My requests here aims to the same goal. I think, the structure at en-wikipedia is consistent and suitable in this respect. It is absurd to blame the wikipedia from duplication: it is no duplication at wikipedia in it. You Ingolfson are who created many duplications and unconsistentness and needles complicacies here. Some railways aren't findable in the appropriate categories of railways (railway lines) because you are displaced them to the upon-category "rail transport" or you have deleted a category of some type of railways etc.
@Gürbetaler: The English word "railway" (or the German word "Bahn" or Czech word "dráha") means primarily the rail-way, i. e. a railway line. In cases where the word "railways" cannot be ambiguous, it should be used instead of some artificial and longer word construction. The company which operate a narrow-gauge railway isn't a narrow-gauge company. This seems clear, the the company cannot be narrow-gauge. Thus "narrow gauge railways" can have only one meaning. If some specific railway line is operated by the homonymic company, it is ordinarilly suitable to use one common category for both this railway and this company. Such category should by categorized as a railway (line) and simultaneously as a railway company.
There are many cases that some railway (line) was divided into two or more lines or that several railways (railway lines) was joined into one railway (which can have more branches). One numbered railway (line) can be composed from more named railways (lines) and several numbered lines can form one named railway. It is independent from the fact whether the appropriate category of railways is named "...railways..." or "...railway lines...". --ŠJů (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not yet that familiar with the category trees in wikimedia. But I have an idea to solve the Problem with this Gordian knot. Let's categorize railway generally as railway companies. Specific railway sections can be collected in specific galleries. Those galleries can be categorized to the respective railway company (or companies, if there is involved more than one railway company, e.g. Glacier Express). There are some advantages with galleries:
The categorization makes use of many categorization criteria concurrently, which are modulary linked at every level. We have railway categories by company already (Category:Rail transport companies) and separate railway lines should by categorized under the appropriate company. But we have categorization by other criteria as well - by country and region, by technical type and purpose etc. Categories which are here discussed are categories by technical type of railway (i. e. railway in the sense of railway line - a company cannot by "narrow gauge"). Gallery pages are an additional utility - they should by categorized, but they don't substitute a category. Generally, galleries contain only the best and most presentable of images, not all images of relevant subject. --ŠJů (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to come back to the start of this discussion. ŠJů wrote, "Narrow gauge railways" can mean only "narrow gauge railway lines" (a railway company cannot be "narrow gauge" and it would be pointless to categorize railway companies by gauge). I work in an office, a federal office, that deals quite a lot with railways. And I have to tell you, that I often hear talking about "Narrow gauge railway companies". I'm not happy about this, because it has two meanings: 1) Companies that only operate on narrow gauge (e.g. RhB) or 2) Companies that operate on narrow gauge (e.g. TPF). Thus, merging "Narrow gauge railways" and "Narrow gauge railway lines" may be correct in a scientific view. But it might be misunderstood by many users! -- Gürbetaler (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:
The current name is according to the commons rules and I strongly oppose any move to another Italian name unless there is a consensus for it and the new name is proven as the official used one. Searches in the Italian Wiki and on google seem to indicate that "Ponte Quattro Capi " is significantly more used than "Ponte dei Quattro Capi"
The current names are according to the commons rules and I definitively try to avoid renames once a compromise (and peace) is found and unchallenged since more than a year.
Systematic disambiguation is not forbidden, and I would even encourage it.
The category has been created by user:G.dallorto, an Italian user with an edit count of 227000. Although I am not always completely satisfied with some of his naming conventions, at least he managed to bring a consistent naming in Italy, which is now more consistent than in most other countries. His position is that a name should be predictable so he can type it in without checking or searching. Moreover, preemptive disambiguation is certainly the best solution in the long run; 20 % of the rename requests could have been avoided if people did foresee a bit more disambiguation. There is nothing that forbids disambiguation and in the end, there will be many more commons categories than there will be wikipedia articles, meaning that Commons will need more disambiguation than wikipedias.
The issue is not with the "dei" but the "(Rome)". Since the bridge's name is unique, this specification is redundant and should be removed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2009 (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.
The naming of this category is inconsistent with the other subcategories of Category:Impact craters; the other categories are all of the form "Impact craters on [body]". I think this should be moved to "Impact craters on Mars" --Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2009 (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.
Reasons for discussion request -- This is outrageously subjective, and should be deleted to avoid setting a precedent or justification for categorising things according to revenue seeking top 10 lists of commercial organisations. oneblackline (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, maybe this list is subjective, bat haw many lists in wikipedia are that? I think that, and is'nt necessarly a joke, it's OK that a similar list stay on Commons, of course not the page on wikipedia, but a simple and innoffensive category on commons that contains the 10 "buildings & monuments" maybe. Suggest you a new name, if you want, but for me the correct name is that of virtualtourism talks about. For the moment I report the references. PS what you think about my macheronioc english? ;) Sorry, I'm from Italy. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (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.
However, "International Order of Oddfellows" gets over 12,000 GHits, so I'd appreciate if someone who knows this territory better than I do would weigh in before we do anything. - Jmabel ! talk17:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category named the «Internatinal» Order of Odd Fellows, and agree that the name form Independent Order of Odd Fellows is the more appropriate one. Sandivastalk10:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a typo, written in a hurry this morning, before driving to en:Nesna. I meant of course "International". Anyway, the Odd Fellow is an international movement, and therefore I chose this designation. The concise name on the Order, which they use themselves, however, is the "Independent Order..." This way they are not to be confused with all the other Odd Fellow movements, which is mostly extinct today. Sandivastalk18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta (talk) to Category:Zygmunt August Lake (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. Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta;Zygmunt August Lake;r;
Well, I agree that the name of this category needs to be changed, since Wikimedia Commons is worldwide and English is its main language. I've created and named this category after the suggestion of one of polish wikipedia user. Originally, the category was meant for infobox on this Polish wikipedia page. The direct translation of the name Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta from Polish into English sounds more like Zygmunt August's Lake (as if the lake belonged to Zygmunt August), then Lake Zygmut August. Although, when it comes to lake's name usually a word "Lake" is before the main name - which doesn't have to be a rule, as I assume. Also it's very important to remember that Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta is a specific name and cannot be change as Teofilo has suggested, into Lake Sigismund Augustus (which is of Latin origin, the language that was commonly used in Poland as well as in most of the European countries in XVI century). Furthermore, from geographical point of view the name Zygmunt August is more recognizable then it's Latin form - Sigismund Augustus. Therefore, with all my respect I have to oppose Teofilo's version. -- Simpledot (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sigismund" is not the Latin translation of Zygmunt, but the English one. The Latin translation of Zygmunt seems to be "Sigismundus" if what I read on en:Sigismund II Augustus is correct :
Polish
Latin
English
Zygmunt August
Sigismundus Augustus
Sigismund Augustus
Jiezioro
Lacus
Lake
The lake named after Queen Victoria is named en:Lake Victoria in English, so perhaps the lake named after King Sigismund Augustus should be called Lake Sigismund Augustus. I don't think Yarl's proposal mixing the English word "lake" and the Polish word "Zygmunt" is a good idea. Keeping the present Polish name "Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta" as a category name sounds to me better than mixing English and Polish. Teofilo (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write that Sigismund Augustus was the Latin translation of the King's name but that it was of Latin origin. But again, apparently my English is as bad as my Latin. Anyway, at this point I see no use of discussing it further. I got Teofilo's point. Coming back to the main subject, I could agree with Teofilo that mixing languages while creating new category is not a good idea but then this category, to which Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta belongs as a subcategory (in fact Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta is a reservoir, though is called a lake), consists of similar subcategories and their names are the mixture of English and Polish. My apologies, but as a newbie I wasn't aware that I should keep a specific chronology and coherence when naming the category. If I had been definitely I would have chosen Lake Zygmunt August or Zygmunt August Lake - alike the rest of the names in this category. Next time I will be more careful. -- Simpledot (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think coherence is something which can be found only in the long term, when a category contains enough contents. Wikimedia Commons, like Wikipedia is a work in progress, so I think it is OK if everything is not 100% perfect from the beginning.
but then Category:Reservoirs_in_Poland, to which Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta belongs as a subcategory (in fact Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta is a reservoir, though is called a lake), consists of similar subcategories and their names are the mixture of English and Polish.
When I say it "looks 0K", I mean to me, as a non-Polish speaker. For example I don't know if "Solina" is a nominative or a genitive. If "Solina" happens to be a genitive, perhaps the English naming would need to be turned into "Lake Solin". So, as a non-Polish speaker I may not be able to help much... Teofilo (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Zalew Nielisz - Zalew in English means reservoir, so I think it should be rename into Nielisz Reservoir;
Category:Reservoir in Jedlnia-Letnisko - this reservoir looks like it doesn't have its own name. Jedlnia-Letnisko is a name of little town close to this reservoir. I'm not sure, but probably the name of this reservoir is Siczki Górne (Upper Siczki in English) - shall it be renamed into Siczki Górne Reservoir then?;
Solina is not a genitive form of a name, it's a specific name.
Closing stale discussion: No consensus on the version to choose, no reference provide for any of them. -- User:Docu at 13:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I was contacted on my user talk page about this. I have no preference: I think Daniel's and Foroa's arguments here are equally valid, so the choice is essentially arbitrary. - Jmabel ! talk16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "centers", much better to have this category named in the way that they're generally (i.e. offline) referred to. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that Drork and Adambro will never be able to agree on categorization of the Latuff images, and that neither is prepared to give way. If the parties were more flexible, mediation would be a possibility but even with the help of a mediator the parties are not realistically going to come to any settlement. The current situation is leading people to talk about blocks, which we as a community ought to avoid if at all possible, particularly as both parties are good contributors here.
I suggest that the issue be settled by means of arbitration. The following proposal is loosely based on the procedures adopted by the International Chamber of Commerce's International Court of Arbitration:
1. Drork and Adambro have seven days to agree between them the names of three Commons users to form an arbitration panel. Panel members can be selected only if they agree to serve. If no agreement on all three names can be reached within that period, Drork and Adambro will then have 48 hours to nominate one panel member each (not themselves). If either party declines to nominate, the other party shall nominate both. The two nominated panel members will between them appoint the third.
2. Once the panel has been appointed, Drork, Adambro, and anyone else who cares to comment may submit proposals for the way in which cartoons by Carlos Latuff (including File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg) should be categorized, and whether there should be a gallery for his images. Suggestions may also be made as to how, in general, disparaging files relating to living individuals should be categorized.
3. The panel will then decide the issue. The decision need not be one of the suggestions already proposed. If the panel is unable to agree, it will decide by majority vote between the existing suggestions already made by Drork and Adambro. The panel may also set out the way in which similar files should be categorized in the future, whether cartoons or other disparaging material relating to a living public individual.
4. The panel's decision will be final and binding on Drork and Adambro, and both pledge in advance that they will not attempt to undermine that decision. The decision will also be binding on the community as a whole, based on the community's acceptance of this arbitration proposal.
5. This proposal comes into force only if agreed in full by both Drork and Adambro (otherwise we are wasting our time), and only if it is approved by a consensus of the wider community (otherwise, any decision will not stick). After a reasonable time for comments and votes, a bureaucrat will close the discussion and, if it is approved, will start the procedure. The panel shall have the power to modify time limits or to make such other modifications to the procedure as it thinks fit.
Support A novel idea. Since at least one admin has otherwise recently proposed banning both D and A from the subject area otherwise, this seems clearly worth a try. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal as currently presented stated "The decision will also be binding on the community as a whole, based on the community's acceptance of this arbitration proposal". I understand it meant the whole community should obey the decission of a panel of three users. It doesn't explain what others users could do if they disagreed with the panel's decission. (Please excuse if I haven't understood it well, and if I haven't expressed my point in proper English) --Javier ME (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think there should be binding content decisions of three users (BTW chosen by Drork and Adambro who both are not exteriorization of community) to another users or whole community. Arbitration could solve only their behavior to each other, not the content and categorization. Drork and Adambro represent only their point of view, not some "groups" involved in Latuff's images dispute. What is more problems between Drork and Adambro are not limited only to Latuff's images. --Dezidor (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These two shouldn't be able to name the people who decide what is binding for the community. I'm ok with them naming the people who decide what binds them. Samulili (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose this proposal because of the reservations both myself (see below) and the others have about it. I don't think it would be right for the strong opinions of myself and Drork to restrict this issue to simply a panel of three users. As I've indicated, if my opinion would be detrimental to the rest of the community in this way then I will happily refrain from commenting on this issue. I would propose that instead of focusing on the two individuals who have been amongst the most vocal about this issue, we focus on the issue itself and allow the community as a whole to decide. I propose this could initially take the form of a number of statements which we invite the community to express whether they endorse similar to the "Findings of fact" used as part of the Arbitration process on Wikipedia, such as "Categories are tools for organising content related to the subject of the category", or perhaps "Adding content to a category is simply a recognition that the content is related to category's subject, not an endorsement of what the content portrays". Just quick ideas but hopefully demonstrate what might be put forward. We could leave that process to run for a week or two and then hopefully have a good flavour of the consensus of the community. I'm not sure how we'd proceed from there but hopefully someone else will be able to suggest how this process could work in greater detail. Adambro (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I spotted this on the general discussion board and have little interest in it, but I don't think it is wise to allow any two people from an edit war to nominate who will write policy for Wikimedia Commons. Even if it were truly necessary to elect a triumvirate to set policy, it would still be best to elect it by a consensus of all users.
I should also note that there is a straightforward solution here. I think we can at least agree the parody is not actually a picture of this Alan Dershowitz or a portrayal of his actions. Therefore, it does not belong directly in that category. It should go in a more specific subcategory Category:Parody of Alan Dershowitz or the like, which can then be linked indirectly from Category:Alan Dershowitz. That way Wikimedia Commons keeps a certain bare minimum of dignity without being overly censorious toward those looking it up by the name.
I am not happy with how this situation is being presented. To present it in this way is to fall into the trap Drork has set. This is not a straightforward argument between me and Drork, there are a large number of editors who are involved and have been more active than me in changing the categorisation of images rather than focussing on trying to discuss it. Drork has simply chosen to try to harass me with constant accusations about misusing my admin rights and his paranoid suggestions of me being part of a conspiracy to try to dissuade me from trying to deal with some of disruption he has been causing.
For example, quite recently, Drork removed {{Dr}} notices from images where the deletion request was still ongoing and then continued to remove them after I reinstated them and explained why they should remain. He used the Category:Alan Dershowitz talk page as a soapbox and complained when I deleted this misuse of a talk page he stated that if File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg remains in the category then admins "must allow people to protest against it". He then complained on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems that I was apparently abusing my admin rights, a claim which lacked any credibility whatsoever. Again, quite recently, due to the failure of a long running campaign to have these images deleted of which he is a prominent figure, he uploaded a number of images as what he described as a "protest" about the existence of these images. Clearly such a "protest" is an inappropriate use of Commons and the "protest" images obviously beyond the scope of the project. As such, I deleted them and Drork's response was to again claim that I'd abused my admin rights.
Drork just simply does not respect the project or its community, as has been clearly demonstrated by his reaction to the failed deletion requests and by his recent threat to involve the media when he ran into difficulties with an unrelated issue.
I would acknowledge that in some instances my actions have lacked transparency because I've expressed my strong opposition to Drork's campaign but it is important to recognise that, not only do we not have an endless collection of uninvolved admins, such a user might not have the understanding of the background to enable them to take the appropriate action, and nor may they wish to become involved because of the harassment that seems to result. It is because I am one of a few admins that has both the background understanding of Drork's long campaign against the Latuff images, and that I am not scared to stand up against him, that he sees me as an obstacle to his campaign and as such an appropriate target. He is trying to do all he can to either force me to not deal with these issues or to simply give up doing so through frustration. Additionally, it would seem that he tries to create as much hassle as possible, so that presumably if he isn't able to convince the community to delete the images he doesn't like by his arguments, he might succeed by frustrating everyone.
What we need, and have probably needed all along, is simply a broader community discussion on the categorisation of these images, without framing it as if it is just a dispute between two users when that isn't the reality of the situation. It is for the community as a whole to decide how we resolve the issue of categorisation, not a panel of three users. Adambro (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it's not a dispute between two users. Let's say there are others on each side. It is, however, a dispute that has been going on for a while, which the community has not been able to resolve. Appointing representatives to settle the issue is not a perfect solution, but it is a novel and bold idea that is worth a try. Surely we don't want this dispute to either go on forever or be resolved by blocking otherwise constructive users, do we? --GRuban (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, this is simply a continuation of your fixed opinion that you are in the right. You need to take a step back now and let others make a final decision. As an admin you should know better than most that the opinion of no single individual is more important than the health of the Commons community. You have presented your arguments very clearly and will have the opportunity to do so again. If you are right, you must have confidence that a neutral panel will uphold your view. If you don't have that confidence, and consider that any neutral proposal is to fall into a "trap", you need to ask yourself why it is you feel that you alone, of all Commons users, are capable of grasping the true situation. The alternative is likely to be a community ban for both of you, as has already been suggested, and block(s) are not out of the question if there is more edit warring. Wide community discussion has been going on for months, and it is the two of you who are leading it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments, in particular my assertion that Drork have acted to try to force me to not participate in Latuff related issues. He has succeeded. I don't contribute to Commons to be subjected to the kind of harassment that Drork has engaged in. Hopefully, eventually, either he will improve his behaviour or the community will deal with him appropriately. As such, I will no longer edit any Carlos Latuff images nor comment on their categorisation. I do though reserve the right to comment in any related deletion requests. I will reverse my reinstatement of the protection of File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg so that it can be clear that the categorisation can be decided by the community as whole. I am tired of this. Adambro (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, if you just walk away who is going to lead the arguments you have championed? You seem to suggest you are giving up and letting Drork have his way. Bear in mind that many users won't care about the issues at all and will go along with almost anything for a quiet life. I urge you not to give up but to support the proposal - which will give your view a fair hearing. It is not right for one side to win by default. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Michael that a panel of three users who haven't got yet involved in this issue could reach further or better than the two users who haven't been able to reach an agreement... but I must agree with Adambro that a broader community discussion would be even better. I don't think a decission taken by just three users should prevent others from categorising caricatures under the category of the person portrayed. --Javier ME (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that a simple consensual process will do here as all previous attempts in the conflicts around this image failed. See this log to see how none of the decisions was broadly accepted afterwards. We cannot allow this to disrupt our community ad infinitum and need a process that is widely accepted and that puts an end to these conflicts. The only alternative I see is a regular poll but I think that MichaelMagg's proposal has more options in solving this and could be indeed the better approach. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It seems clear following several months of pretty bitter argument that the idea of some "community consensus" that can be reached if we all try hard enough is a mirage. This is an issue where there are strong views held on both sides, and not only by Drork and Adambro. Doing nothing and allowing edit wars to continue is not a good option, and neither is blocking individuals. My guess is that there is a significant section of the community that will be prepared to accept either option, provided that it sticks and avoids further edit wars. Hence this proposal. As in a "real" arbitration or court case, the decison will not please everyone but the need to avoid this argument festering is in my view even more important than the fact that some users will inevitably be unhappy whatever the outcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is not an issue between me and Adambro. This is an issue that was discussed several times in large forums. In the most recent discussion, users were ask to decide whether the above mentioned image should be deleted. The majority said no (although there was a significant minority in favor), but there was also a strong voice in favor of changing the categorization of the image. This voice is currently ignored after Adambro returned the situation to what it used to be and locked the page. I don't mind that someone neutral will look into this issue and provide a solution. I don't know who this person might be. Drork (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a search through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg reopen for any matches for "categ" which will I assume give a good flavour of where categorisation was discussed. Categorisation is certainly discussed on a large number of occasions, particularly by you and myself, but I find it hard to see how it can be said to support the removal of File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg from the Alan Dershowitz category without any further discussion as you have suggested. All can be really concluded from the mentions of categorisation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg reopen is that it is an issue perhaps worthy of more attention. This is why, in the absence of any consensus to remove the category either from the deletion request or the image's talk page, I reinstated the categories and protected the page so as to prevent further changes which lacked consensus. I have now since removed the protection so it can be clear that I have not tried to impose my position but recognise that it might need to be protected again even without any further contributions from me. Attempts to establish a consensus on the talk page to remove this image from Category:Alan Dershowitz have consistently failed, the deletion request doesn't demonstrate a consensus to do this either. Adambro (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were people suggested this image should be under "Antisemitic caricatures" or "Anti-Israeli caricatures". This suggestion was rejected due to possible libel suite on behalf of Latuff. There were other expression of discontent with the way this image is categorized. There was absolutely no consensus regarding the current categorization of this image, and since new suggestions were proved impractical, any controversial category should be removed. There is no possibility to open a new discussion on the talk page, because people have just expressed their opinion in a special lengthy and detailed discussion. You cannot expect people to get involved in so many discussions over and over again. As for your removal of the page block - should someone remove the controversial categories, will you revert and block again? Drork (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say there "was absolutely no consensus regarding the current categorization of this image", what was really the case was that there was no consensus as to how the categorisation should be changed. The discussion didn't provide a clear consensus as to how the categorisation should be and so it shouldn't be changed. The fact that there wasn't a consensus about this presumably means that some expressed they were happy with the current categorisation and/or unhappy with the proposed changes. You can't justify removing "controversial" categories where the community haven't come to an agreement about it. What makes them controversial is that some want them removed whilst others don't, so the categories being controversial certainly cannot justify removing them. What you are basically doing is proposing their removal, being unable to get a consensus to do so but then removing them anyway because not everyone has agreed with you. You must realise that this isn't how things work. This has been perhaps caused some of the difficulties with dealing with this issue and is why the page has been protected on numerous occasions because not being able to get consensus to remove categories means they shouldn't be removed. I don't want you, others, or myself to have to be constantly engaged in discussions about this but a fundamental problem is your inability to recognise that where a change is discussed and consensus doesn't emerge to support that change it shouldn't be made. The problem is that despite this, you've continued to make these changes and so get asked to explain yourself, at which point we simply repeat the same old arguments that have continuously failed to find a consensus to support the changes. Until you respect the consensus, or rather lack of it to support your proposed change, this is going to continue to cause problems for all of us.
Regarding the protection of the page, I've already said that I won't be participating in changing this or the categories themselves but should someone remove categories where that action is unsupported by consensus then I would expect someone else to deal with that appropriately which could be by simply reverting it, reinstating the page protection or blocking the user. Adambro (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Adambro, please try to be more concise. I am not known for writing short messages myself, but still, these discussions go on and on and on, and it is impossible to follow them with such long messages.
The only people who participate in this particular discussion are those interested in promoting Latuff's cartoons - either the people who uploaded the images, or lobbied for keeping them whenever someone suggested to delete them or change the way they are displayed. The idea of splitting the discussion into deletion discussion, then undeletion discussion, then discussion about categories, then discussion about unblocking the page, then adding an irrelevant category and discussing its removal (it happened before), is, in my opinion, a kind of method to make these images overly visible. Naturally, those who object the way these images are displayed, get tired and leave. I am the only person who still bother to worry about the damage that these images cause to this project, and I am pretty tired myself.
The way the image is categorize now implies, strongly, an endorsement of the view expressed in this drawing. You cannot deny it. Just find any ten people and ask them. You'll see this is how people perceive it. I am not the first to express this concern, and I am not the only one to ask that irrelevant categories be removed to reduce the damage caused by this image. These request are always answered with aggressive rejection.
A consensus is needed for categorizing an image. In case there is no consensus - the category drops. In this case there is no consensus. You try to overturn the rule in order to get your way.
The only reason this cartoon is here, is to show the scathing nature of Latuff's drawing. This was said explicitly in the deletion discussion. Therefore, there is no use categorizing it under "Alan Dershowitz" or "Male masturbation". You might as well categorize it under "American people", "sperm", "People that Latuff hates", "hobbies", "activities religiously forbidden", "necrophilia" and I can think of many other possible redundant categories. The truth is that only "Latuff" is relevant, nothing else. Drork (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would apologise about the sometimes lengthy nature of my comments but I only say what I consider necessary to demonstrate the basis for making a point in the hope that doing so will mean it I don't need to clarify why I have said something later on. Despite this, I have already on a number of occasions answered some of the points you make. Your point about perceptions for example, so I won't repeat myself so as to prevent these discussions being any longer than needed.
I would again suggest that you don't understand how the idea of consensus works on the WMF projects. The numerous discussions have demonstrated that there is not consensus to remove the categories as you proposed. That means they shouldn't be removed because if we then had a discussion about adding the categories, that same consensus that the categories are appropriate would be very likely to emerge so to remove them without consensus is simply a waste of everyone's time. There is no rules that says if a number of editors suggest a category should be removed but are unable to find consensus to support that action that it should go ahead anyway. If you are able to learn to respect consensus then this problem will be instantly resolved because you won't continue to remove the category without consensus to support that action and nor will you continue with the same old arguments as to why you feel it should be removed because they didn't result in a consensus to support the removal previously. Additionally, if you don't wish to alienate large numbers of users, you might want to avoid suggesting that everyone who discusses these issues is "interested in promoting Latuff's cartoons". I, as I suspect will be the same with many others, am not a fan of Latuff's work, nor am I interested in trying to promote his work. Adambro (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We seem do have a profound disagreement about what a consensus is. A consensus is a status quo to which no one objects, or in a less ideal state of affairs - none of those who object can bring good sound arguments against it. In this case there are people who object the status quo, and they have good sound arguments. Had we taken your approach, anyone could introduce any change anywhere, and claim there is no consensus about reverting it. By the way, I objected this categorization from the very beginning, so no one can say there used to be a consensus at some point.
There seem to be a group of users who protect Latuff's images by monitoring changes made to their pages very closely. This is not an assumption, this is a matter of fact. Rarely have I encountered such close monitoring on a WM project, and it mostly by the same users. As I said, this is a matter of fact. I already stated above the problems that this situation creates. Drork (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that there are a group of users interested in protecting Latuff's images and I would certainly describe myself as one of them. It certainly doesn't make me a fan of the images or Latuff himself. You don't note though that there are also another group of users who seem to be part of a long running campaign to attack these images in any way possible.
Your interpretation of how consensus works is an interesting one. A consensus is not "a status quo to which no one objects" nor a situation where no one can "bring good sound arguments against it". Consensus is a "general agreement" or is "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned". It is not possible to say whether your arguments are sound or not since obviously those who disagree don't think so. You are simply making a proposal, a proposal which seems cannot be said to have been accepted generally or by most of those concerned. There is no consensus to support the removal of the categories so the implication has to be that there is consensus to keep them.
You say that if we take my approach "anyone could introduce any change anywhere, and claim there is no consensus about reverting it". Well, it is true to a certain extent that anyone can change anything and if the undoing of their change is objected to then consensus needs to emerge to support the undoing. Adambro (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this page was meant for you two to have this argument all over again. By now you both have very clearly stated you positions, and made it very clear that you won't budge an inch; that's precisely why this proposal has been made, to attempt and solve this dilemma. It would be great if you could comment further on the proposal. If you disagree with it, try and make suggestions improve it. If you made up your mind already, then cast you vote on the support/oppose section above. Developing your arguments further without having a protocol on how to reach a decision and make it stick is simply useless. –Tryphon☂14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now more formally noted my opposition to the process in its current form and suggested a potential alternative that would allow for greater community input and a focusing on the issues rather than the contributors involved. I do however consider it appropriate that I respond to any comments Drork makes on this page because it could help to clarify this issue. Adambro (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object this issue be reviewed by a person who was not involved in the discussions regarding Latuff's cartoons, and that his decision be final. I cannot come up with a name right now. Drork (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion started on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, after a request concerning the subcategories of Category:SVG coats of arms : Rename Category:SVG coats of arms - Algeria as Category:SVG coats of arms of Algeria.
Rename Category:SVG coats of arms - Argentina as Category:SVG coats of arms of Argentina, et caetera...
These moves are of no use at all since all the SVG cats were named the same way. So what is the reason? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
These SVG cats are named the same way, but I don't think this way is a good way. Categories are usually named on the pattern "Category:Tigers in Spain", not "Category:Tigers - Spain". I think the hyphen should be replaced by an article like "in" or "of" or "from", etc... instead of using the hyphen. Teofilo (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well to name a cat SVG image somthing is also not a good way. But that you did not change. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on, CommonsDelinker is a place where people perform some tasks, in particular write requests for that robot. The Wikimedia projects are collaborative projects, and people need to talk with each other on the very place where they are working, not 2 or 3 pages away from there. Teofilo (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The SVG should be at the end. Like "Flag foobar in SVG format". --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, "Flag of xxx, SVG format". Problem is that in many cases, the first part of the category name (SVG Coats of arms...) are generated by tens of templates, the second part as a parameter to the template. Just horrible and not manageable by standard bots. --Foroa (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I insist on "in". "Category:Tigers in Spain" sounds to me better than "Category:Tigers, Spain". Is it OK to use the SVG acronym ? Should we not write "scalable vector graphics", as we write "United States" and "United Kingdom" instead of US or UK. How about "Category:Flags of Switzerland in scalable vector graphics" ? (I am not sure if capitalization is required : Scalable Vector Graphics ?) Teofilo (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercase "scalable vector graphics" would seem to refer to anyvector graphics format (they're all scalable pretty much by definition). The name of the specific XML-based vector graphics format used on Commons is "Scalable Vector Graphics", or "SVG" for short. Yes, it's kind of confusing, though not really more so than the names of any other common graphics formats.
So we should use either the acronym or the capitalized version. I remove the lower case version from the proposal list below. Teofilo (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should try and make all these sub categories follow a similar naming scheme. Right now we have the following (note the case changes):
SVG — <topic>
SVG — <Topic>
SVG <topic>
SVG <Topic>
<Topic> (svg)
I may have missed some in the sub-sub-categories. The majority seem like they use "SVG <topic>". Any suggestions? Rocket00007:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the principle of starting from the topic, rather than from "SVG". Instead of using parenthesis, a natural use of the grammar of the English language, using prepositions like "in", or "with" has my preference. I am also unsure if we should use acronyms. So I would like to add the following suggestions :
<Topic> in Scalable Vector Graphics
<Topic> in SVG
<Topic> in SVG format
Note that the principle of starting from the topic, and following with the medium is not what is being done in - for example - Category:Cats in art where we find "category:paintings of cats" "Statues of cats" "graffiti of cats", "drawings of cats" instead of "cats on paintings" "cats as statues", "cats on graffiti", "cats on drawings" (but "cats on stamps" is being used, and all these "cats" categories could be changed in the future in order to implement the principle of starting from the topic. (This would also require changing the text on Help:SVG#Naming_conventions where "SVG...<topic>" is recommanded).
Can I take this back a step? What is the point of any 'SVG by topic' categorisation? Is there extensive 'media type by topic' or 'topic by media type' for other formats? A quick search suggests not much of the former, anyway. Surely <topic> and <media type> are orthogonal concepts and categorisation as 'SVG by topic' would actually make it harder to find files on <topic> that just happened to be SVG? See previous brief discussion at Help_talk:SVG#Categorization. Globbet (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shouldn't be dividing up topic categories into SVG and non-SVG, however I still think having a additional category system (that is by format) can be useful. Because of the inherent difference between vectors and raster graphics, it's useful in many cases to browse media that way (especially in cases like maps, heraldry, translatable diagrams, etc. where it makes a huge difference when you're looking to make derivatives). It wouldn't be very useful if we were talking about making categories like "PNG by topic" or "JPEG by topic". Maybe we should change "SVG" to "vector graphics" to help point out that the format itself (which can consist of purely raster images anyway) is not important but it's main feature is? BTW, we also have Category:Pdf files, animation-only categories, and audio-only categories, which are essentially accomplishing the same thing. That reminds me, Category:Pictures and images needs a complete makeover. Rocket000 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's restart.
1. The main thematic categories we are looking at are mainly a subset of a parent category with similar images but with no medium format limitation. So the first rule we should agree upon: The category name should be the same as its parent category with a prefix or suffix.
2. The secondary categories, being the category structure of SVG related categories in Category:SVG, should not be so evolutive and I think that the top level could remain mostly the same. Anyway, renaming them has no significant repercussions on the other categories.
3. Considering that the category is a specialisation of its parent category, it sounds logical that its name receives a suffix, not a prefix.
4. We need a suffix notation that allows to express a particular file format subset category, and although we target here svg formats, in other places, we have similar problems with pdf, audio, video, DjVu, B&W, animated gif, tiff, jpeg, ... We need to find a distinguishing notation, such as a suffix like @svg, ^pdf, ~audio, +agif, "DjVu, °jpeg, ++tiff. Before choosing here, it would be nice to check that the special characters are available on all worldwide keyboards and if those strings return easily a result when using a search facility. The latter discards some special characters such as dots and paranthesises. How this suffix is glued, formatted and packed is to be discussed below (+parenthesises, lower/upper case, syntax)
To simplify finding SVG files, wouldn't it be easier to modify Mediawiki to categorize all SVG files into a category by MIME type? This shouldn't be too complicated as MediaWiki identifies the MIME type (img_minor_mime). For most applications (with catscan), one such category can be sufficient. -- User:Docu at 00:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the mime type is already stored in a table, it would be more efficient to change the interface/CatScan to use it, rather than to duplicate this into the category table. -- User:Docu at 07:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Catscan does not meet the wikimedia quality and availability standard. But I agree that a simple filter on the category display function that allows to filter out some media types (for example based on MIME type or file extension) would greatly decrease the need of (redundant) parallel categories. --Foroa (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if mediawiki meets Wikimedia standards at all times, but in any case, this doesn't preclude us from relying on it. As yours is an abstract argument without any reference, I'm not quite sure where you intend to go.
The file table and automated categories seem more stable and reliable to me as manually maintained categories. -- User:Docu at 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new version of CatScan outputs the image type. Currently it can't filter for it though:
You'd have to ask magnus to add it. A thumbnail output option is currently missing as well. For most applications it works much better than the old one. -- User:Docu at 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Catscan is something that the vast majority of commons users would want to get into. The interface is far too daunting. Come to think of it, Mediawiki seems to me to be lacking in navigation facilities at present. We are having this discussion precisely because the category system just does not work all that well. An enhanced, built in, search tool that would find categories and then find their intersections would vastly facilitate the processes of categorisation and searching (making this whole discussion redundant). Globbet (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all 4 points. Now let's concentrate on the suffix notion (for any and all formats, not just SVG). Before talking about the syntax, let's get the capitalization and abbreviation issues out of the way. I suggest SVG, PDF, GIF, etc. Always capitalized and abbreviated. The reason being that is what they are best known as. Abbreviations should normally be avoided, but in this case it makes the most sense. And calling it (for example) PDF instead of "Portable Document Format" it perfectly acceptable and not considered informal in any way. Adding "format" at the end is also not necessary (and saying "PDF format" is like saying "PIN number" or "ATM machine"). One could also say the we are referring to the file extension instead of the format (Things like JPEG would have to be JPG/JPEG/etc.). "DjVu" is an exception to the all-caps rule.
Ok, now for the notation. Personally, I like parentheses. Simple to use and looks the best (IMHO). A negative of this (potentially) is that it's the same format we use for many other things, either as part of names themselves or as disambiguation terms. Both of these uses relate to the subject itself and are not "meta" characteristics like the file format. The same goes for commas. Many names have commas in them (e.g. "city, country"). Using hyphens is another choice I can live with (but not en/em dashes please, too hard to type on most keyboards), e.g. "category - SVG". Of course brackets aren't an option, e.g. "category [SVG]", due to the wiki link syntax. "category {SVG}" and "category <SVG>" are ugly. @svg, ^pdf, ~audio, etc. are good ideas for searching but would be confusing/inappropriate if we used any of them for the category names themselves, e.g. "category @SVG" - no way. Let's see... there's "category; SVG", "category -- SVG", "category (in SVG)", "category in SVG"... what else? Rocket000 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, maybe @SVG, ^SVG, etc. would be ok once everyone becomes familiar with it, but, in general, I think people will take the symbols as meaning something else like @SVG = "at SVG", or °jpeg = "degrees jpeg? what?", or "DjVu = "someone forgot to close those quotes". Rocket000 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a wider perspective, I don't think we really need a file format extension specification but a wider functional content oriented specification, as comes clear from other discussions (Black and white pictures for example). File extension specifications have other drawbacks too, suchs as:
SVG: what if another scalable vector format , other than SVG, becomes supported here
Ogg: how to distinguish movies from sound ? What if mp* becomes supported ?
gif: how to filter animated gif from normal gif
I think that a content oriented notation like this could be more generic:
Other cases to be considered: spreadsheets, programs, formulae (Tex sequences), ...
Templates with the same syntax could be made and added to the specific images for later search and automated bot recategorisation (or additional filtering on the category displays. --Foroa (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. We shouldn't use file extensions. We should use labels that highlight the reason for separation; formats themselves aren't really important. Even right now, there's cases where extension oriented categories include/exclude things we didn't intend to be, but there's certain issues with the ones above. (And now I'm going to contradict myself...) For one thing, there are important differences in file formats at least in terms of reusability and accessibility, e.g. I currently ignore TIFFs and PDFs because they are very inconvenient to me (this includes anything I have to download just to preview, but for others it could mean downloading new software too). I would hate to have a once useful category be swamped with these. There are also some multi-"content" formats. You already mentioned the OGG and GIF ones, but here's some other ones: PDFs can embed vector graphics and practically anything else. They can be all text or all images. SVGs can include raster graphics. There are some animated SVGs here, but the MediaWiki thumbnail isn't animated (most browsers support them now, you need to view the file directly to see it move). Who knows the future. And then there's the maintenance side. Someone looking to restore an image may want to browse by TIFFs only. Someone looking to convert PDF books into DjVu may want just PDFs. But these aren't just for us editors since our "readers" are more interactive than a encyclopedia's readers. People usually come here to find an image to use, not just look at.
Basically, I think trying to make such broad rules may be too great a task for us right now. I don't want to lose focus on the SVG thing which desperately needs help. We should keep the bigger picture in mind, but concentrate on SVGs vectors and get that in shape to see how it works and then possibly extend it to other areas. Since this is a media repository, I think it's ok to be a little "meta" minded when it comes to naming categories. Meaning that there's nothing wrong with having a category called "Drawings of X" or "X sound files", in the same way Wikipedia calls some pages "List of X". They wouldn't say "Article of X" in the same way we wouldn't (or shouldn't) say "Files of X" or even "Images of X" because it's self-explanatory, but that doesn't mean that the subject should always take precedence. More importantly, by using natural language their meaning becomes apparent instantly. Who's going know what "(f:stext)" means without looking it up? I know that's just an example, but I'm having trouble coming up with something similar that works as well as the plain old names we have now. We just have to get them all following the same conventions. Rocket000 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing stale thread: given the many interesting ideas brought up in this discussion, a proposal should be drafted and presented. -- User:Docu at 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
That does make sense, but the only sub-cat that follows that naming is Category:Rail transport tickets in the United States. Thinking about it would support changing the "in <country>" to "of <country>", as tickets for travel in one country may be photographed in another country. Indeed for international services, tickets issued in country 1 may be valid for travel in country 2 and may be very different in design to tickets issued in country 2. In order of preference, I would support renaming all the categories to one of the following schemes (using Argentine as an example)
My knowledge of Commons processes is so out of date that I don't know whether proposing this here will suffice or if I have to do it more formally? Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would better "railway tickets" (see Railway tickets in India) than "rail tickets". "Rail transport tickets" is accaptable too, but needlessly long, and it would better to not mix tram (streetcar) or underground (metro) tickets with classical railway tickets. --ŠJů (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about everywhere, but in places like London tickets for trams and the underground can be identical in form to those for mainline railways. But if people want them separate then maybe specific tickets could be subcategories of rail transport tickets. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in Prague and its surroundings tickets of Prague Integrated Transport (extended Prague city transport) can be used in trains, but they aren't perceived as "railway tickets". Instead them the passenger can choose and use a true railway ticket. I think, the category of railway tickets should be intended for special railway tickets, not for universal (integrated) tickets. --ŠJů (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that generic tickets should be in the Rail transport tickets of... and that railway specific ones should be in a sub-category Railway tickets of... ? If you are, then I will support that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting, all railway tickets should be in "Railway tickets of...". Integrated tickets which are valid in several types of transport should be only in up-categories "Public transport tickets of..." generally. --ŠJů (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so "Category:Public transport tickets of..." would contain integrated tickets (e.g. London travelcards) and the subcategories "Category:Railway tickets of", "Category:Tram tickets of", "Category:Bus tickets of", etc. If I have understood you right this time, then I'm happy with that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that "Cannabis" is the drug and "Hemp" (also Industrial Hemp) is the industrial low-THC-level plant.
Cannabis Events usually deal with the legalisation of Marihuana while Hemp Events are usually deal with what you can create out of Hemp (e.g. choclate with hemp flavour, clothes, hemp seeds as snack, bread made of hemp seeds and lots of other stuff) and the plant as cultural plant through hundreds of years.
I would keep both, because cannabis is not hemp and should may not be mixed.
Hmm. Well, if we are making a distinction that subtle, then we should at least say something at the top of each page, so that either category can be found from the other and so that the distinction is clear. But the terminology for the distinction seems very odd to me, since Cannabis isn't particularly a "drug" term (for example, it is the etymological root of "canvas"). If we are going to make that distinction, shouldn't it be something like "marijuana" rather than "cannabis"? Also, a lot of events and groups seem to focus equally on both: for example, Seattle's Hempfest certainly has drug culture origins and elements, but does a lot of work related to medical marijuana and industrial hemp. - Jmabel ! talk16:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear seperation between cannabis and hemp events, because they usually deal with both. But some deal more with one issue than the other. Even Cannabis is not only the drug it is often used for drugs. However I wouldn't call events "Marijuana events".
We could create an new category named "Cannabis and hemp events" to merge moth because many of them deal with both.
It isn't a "subtle" difference when you look at an entire culture that must toe the legal lines and the difference between hemp and marijuana could be jail time. Granted the people toeing this line are only paying lip service to it... -Nard the Bard05:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Marijuana" is specifically a drug term. But cannabis and hemp can both refer to non-drug plants of the species as well. - Jmabel ! talk10:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cannabis can actually refer to the genus itself since that is the scientific name so that's why it can be unclear at times if you are referring to the plant in general or only the drug. In one sense it does include hemp. Rocket000 (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed redirect to Category:Cannabis events, with the latter redefined to cover all uses of the plant genus cannabis. With the only content of Category:Hemp events one subcategory, and so much overlap between the two types of events, this seems the right solution. If a lot more clearly hemp-event-specific material appears, the situation could be re-evaluated. Rd232 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:
My proposal: Ponte d'Augusto (Rimini): unchallenged name of the English version (alternatively Ponte di Tiberio, since, being constructed by two emperors, the bridge features both names)
Not for his original requests, see PS below. The CFD procedure has been corrected and followed since yesterday. --Foroa (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, a more clear reformulation of your request:
Rename Category:Tiberius bridge in Rimini (talk) to Category:Ponte d'Augusto (Rimini) (0 entries moved, 225 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Tiberius bridge in Rimini;Ponte d'Augusto (Rimini);r;
Rename Category:Roman bridge, Mérida (talk) to Category:Puente Romano (Mérida) (0 entries moved, 51 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Roman bridge, Mérida;Puente Romano (Mérida);r;
Rename Category:Roman bridge, Córdoba (talk) to Category:Puente Romano (Córdoba) (0 entries moved, 458 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Roman bridge, Córdoba;Puente Romano (Córdoba);r;
Rename Category:Roman bridge, Trier (talk) to Category:Römerbrücke (Trier) (0 entries moved, 89 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Roman bridge, Trier;Römerbrücke (Trier);r;
Rename Category:Ponte Quattro Capi (Rome) (talk) to Category:Ponte dei Quattro Capi (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. Ponte Quattro Capi (Rome);Ponte dei Quattro Capi;r;
While I tend to be very tolerant for local names, for bridges that tend to be often on language, cultural and country borders, that often changed in history, English names are definitively better as they create less conflicts. And this is anyway the Commons main rule. This does not imply automatically that the En:wiki can be taken as a reference for correct names.
Especially in Spain, with its four official languages and its many borders, a generic English name such as Roman bridge is a real blessing. Trier too, with its important role in the Roman, Frank, French and Luxembourg history, benefits from more international names.
The current names are according to the commons rules and I definitively try to avoid renames once a compromise (and peace) is found and unchallenged since several years. --Foroa (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the exact Commons rule you refer to. Actually, there is no ongoing naming conflict on any of these bridges, which makes your actions even more mystifying. The renaming request of mine is merely meant to give consistency to the naming scheme of Roman bridges. Since Colin O'Connor 1993 monograph, the main English reference on Roman bridges, uses the local names such as Puente Romano, Ponte di Tiberio, and since the general rule on all Wikipedias is to rely on published scholarly resources, your contention to use 'English' names is actually close to original research. These are not even used by English authors. Finally, you are also still avoiding any discussion on why you refuse to use the widely employed brackets, nor did you justify your removal of Ponte Quattro Capi. Personally, I find these subjective interpretations of Common rules rather irritating, and I would like to hear some qualified opinions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The names: English names are to be preferred but only a reference when they are referenced as such in widely available reference works such as Encyclopedia Brittanica or Encarta. In the case of bridges, there seem to be very few bridges referred as such. A second option is to use an English generic name when possible, typically for generic names, such as Roman bridge. A third option is the local name, and in that case, the only logical name is the official local name as is displayed on the bridge and on the maps of the city; it makes no sense to give them a name in the local language that is different from the local name, even if historically incorrect.
The format. Commons format rules are quite wide and indeed open for interpretation. In general, I try not to interfere with the local naming habits that tend to converge to some uniformity at the local level, but indeed show differences when looking at the international level.
In terms of format, I would say that here are the priorities I see
"yyy bridge in/of xxx" This is by far the preferred Commons format, but as the in/of/from often creates problems, we see that an upcoming de factor standard is "yyy bridge, xxx" where xxx is the place. Indeed, the latter avoids not only the in/of/from problem, it is easily extensible for places that need disambiguation terms.
another format we see often is "yyy bridge (qualifier)". The qualifier is typically stating what the object is.
But as I stated, there are many variant possible and I will certainly not move categories for such details, especially when the local naming consistency is strong, such as in Italy. --Foroa (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Foroa, you make strong claims of how things are done at Commons in this or that way all the time, but where is your evidence? Why don't actually cite the relevant Commons rules to prove your views? Right now you give the impression of following your own idiosyncratic rules.
With only 1,5 million entries as opposed to 8-10 million for Wikipedias, you should be aware that citing Encyclopedia Britannica for verification is in many cases logically impossible.
And on what grounds do you continue to refute the naming convention of the specialist literature I gave you (O'Connor, Galliazzo)?
And, if you like, we can do a comprehensive search whether "yyy bridge in/of xxx" or "yyy bridge, xxx" or, as it is, "yyy bridge (xxx)" is the common naming standard.
You, as an administrator, are here not to make rules, but to follow them. If there is a standard, let's follow it; if not, not. All your "upcoming standards" speculation falls between these categories and is thus totally out of place here. So, I would ask you to give for every and each of your claims evidence. I already did long ago the same with the specialist reference. I am on the verge of bringing up he topic again on the main page, if you cannot substantiate your arguments. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WarningsNote: Please do not request name changes that you know may be controversial (this includes, for example, renaming locations into a different local language - even if "that is the official name used there"). Such move requests should be undertaken via {{Move}} or COM:CFD instead, to allow objections - if any - to be made on the talk page. All moves have to follow the language policy for the category namespace.
So it is normal that your request was declined and that trying to slip move requests several times in the delinker request page made no sense. Despite the fact that it was suggested by other people, you did not introduce a formal move or CFD request. Discussion went on on Category_talk:Tiberius_bridge_in_Rimini and on my talk page. --Foroa (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:
While I tend to be very tolerant for local names, for bridges that tend to be often on language, cultural and country borders, that often changed in history, English names are definitively better as they create less conflicts. And this is anyway the Commons main rule. This does not imply automatically that the En:wiki can be taken as a reference for correct names.
Requester prefers "Ponte d'Augusto", no doubt with very good reasons. He named and wrote the en: and de: wiki articles, so those set has to be considered as one single reference (and not three as suggested).
Given that the majority of wikipedia's (all the roman countries) refer to the Tiberius bridge (de:Ponte d'Augusto (Rimini), en:Pons Augustus (Rimini), , fr:Pont de Tibère, it:Ponte di Tiberio), the Italian wikipedia where the bridge is located, nor the Spanish or French wikipedia don't even mention a potential other name resembling "Ponte d'Augusto", I see no sufficient ground to rename the category to "Ponte d'Augusto".
It would be not very clever to rename a bridge to an Italian name that is different from the name used by the citizens of the city.
The current name is according to the commons rules and I strongly oppose any move to an Italian name unless there is a consensus for it and the Italian name is proven as the official used one. --Foroa (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current name is not in accordance with the Commons rules since a) the additional "in Rimini" is rather commonly expressed as "(Rimini)" and b) the English name, being a proper name, should be in any case "Tiberius Bridge". However, this name is not common in the scholarly works, which prefer either "Ponte di Tiberio" or "Ponte d'Augusto" (see O’Connor, Colin (1993), Roman Bridges, Cambridge University Press, pp. 84f., ISBN0-521-39326-4). These are also the official Italian names (see Galliazzo, Vittorio (1994), I ponti romani. Catalogo generale, Vol. 2, Treviso: Edizioni Canova, pp. 108, ISBN88-85066-66-6). So please stop obstructing progress on the work on Roman bridges for purely personal reasons. 10:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
For the format: I am under the impression that there is in English quite some mixup between title cases and proper names, as you can read in en:Title-case#Places_and_geographic_terms. Especially generic terms are quite mixed up. Moreover, those habits (as the rules are not very clear and solid), are leaning to the culture of the US and Germany, but not so much in other countries. In the US and Germany, one will find often Xxx Castle, while in other countries you will find Xxx castle, where castle is quite rightly to me, a generic term. All this to explain I don't waste my time executing moves that change case in one direction or in the other, until there is somewhere a clear and unambiguous rule for the title/proper noun case. I often check the use of the title case in the articles and very often they are incoherent with the title, meaning that the title case is often confused with the proper name. So there is nor Iron simple rule that specifies if one has to write the one or the other. Just look in en:Category:Churches in Sweden and Category:Churches in Skåne: if they are so inconsistent, it just proves that we have a problem with the rule (or its interpretation) in the first place, not with its implementation. Anyway, if you would use Roman Bridge as category/article name, to be consistent, you have to write al the times Bridge with capital in the text when you refer to the bridge, which is obviously not done.
To the best of my knowledge, on Commons, there is no simple comprehensive rule for capitalisation (besides the unfortunate "No Title Case rule"). --Foroa (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WarningsNote: Please do not request name changes that you know may be controversial (this includes, for example, renaming locations into a different local language - even if "that is the official name used there"). Such move requests should be undertaken via {{Move}} or COM:CFD instead, to allow objections - if any - to be made on the talk page. All moves have to follow the language policy for the category namespace.
I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:
While I tend to be very tolerant for local names, for bridges that tend to be often on language, cultural and country borders, that often changed in history, English names are definitively better as they create less conflicts. And this is anyway the Commons main rule. This does not imply automatically that the En:wiki can be taken as a reference for correct names.
Especially in Spain, with its four official languages and its many borders, a generic English name such as Roman bridge is a real blessing. Trier too, with its important role in the Roman, Frank, French and Luxembourg history, benefits from more international names.
The current names are according to the commons rules and I definitively try to avoid renames once a compromise (and peace) is found and unchallenged since several years. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:
While I tend to be very tolerant for local names, for bridges that tend to be often on language, cultural and country borders, that often changed in history, English names are definitively better as they create less conflicts. And this is anyway the Commons main rule. This does not imply automatically that the En:wiki can be taken as a reference for correct names.
Especially in Spain, with its four official languages and its many borders, a generic English name such as Roman bridge is a real blessing. Trier too, with its important role in the Roman, Frank, French and Luxembourg history, benefits from more international names.
The current names are according to the commons rules and I definitively try to avoid renames once a compromise (and peace) is found and unchallenged since several years. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:
While I tend to be very tolerant for local names, for bridges that tend to be often on language, cultural and country borders, that often changed in history, English names are definitively better as they create less conflicts. And this is anyway the Commons main rule. This does not imply automatically that the En:wiki can be taken as a reference for correct names.
Especially in Spain, with its four official languages and its many borders, a generic English name such as Roman bridge is a real blessing. Trier too, with its important role in the Roman, Frank, French and Luxembourg history, benefits from more international names.
The current names are according to the commons rules and I definitively try to avoid renames once a compromise (and peace) is found and unchallenged since several years. --Foroa (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2009 (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.
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.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
To simplify the use of this category and expand its scope, I like to suggest to rename Category:Black and white photographs to Category:BW photos (1). The new category would be applied to any black and white photographs (2), including those from Category:Images from the German Federal Archive - at least the ones that aren't in color (3). To these images the category could be applied by bot or through a modification of its template (4). Photos could still be categorized in the present (not renamed) subcategories as well (5). In the future, maybe someone creates a tool to add the category automatically to images (6). I'd be glad to have your opinion on any of these six points. -- User:Docu at 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the renaming, it's not in line with our naming conventions and just not clear. I don't know if it's very useful to fill this whole tree, but if you feel you want to spend a lot of time on it...... Multichill (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could amend the naming conventions accordingly. Depending on the number of exceptions, it might not take that much time. -- User:Docu at 09:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't take it personal, but commons is not used just by native english speakers, but also by people with other native languajes and who learned english as a secondary languaje. For this people, this slang of contracting words is rather confusing and it won't be so clear that "BW means "Black and white". We are not writing in cell phones here, words should be kept in their original form. Belgrano (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I brought it up for discussion, is that I'm interest in your comments. The name of the category is just one part of the proposal (1), not necessarily the most important one. There would be a category descriptions that would elaborate on the name of the category (BTW there already is one). -- User:Docu at 17:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several reasons
Abbreviations are indeed a bad idea in an international multi-lingual context
Quickly Changing the naming conventions for each possible exception popping up is not a good idea neither
As one can see in en:BW, BW is not a recognized abbreviation for Black and white pictures, rather en:B&W but it has many other meanings too. Not sure what special characters are allowed on Commons names.
We should have about 100 to 300 000 B&W pictures, meaning approching one million is 12 to 18 months: what does it help having them in one single category. What can we do with the 1000+ images in Category:Black and white photographs of Germany ? AS it is standing now, we are heading for a complete parallel categorisation system that is very much different from the main one.
I think that in the long run, such images should have a (bot generated) tag (and search/display filtering support) that states the type of source medium (drawing/sketch//photo/painting/tapestry/sound/video/etching/ ...), transport medium type (printed/scanned/analog photo/digital), presentation (2D/3D, B&W, colour, Daguerrotype, animated, ...--Foroa (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as I understand it that you mainly address (1), that is the renaming the category. BTW it would be "BW photos", not just "BW". I'm reluctant to use "&" in category names.
The advantage of the category is that one could easily select or exclude "BW photos" when searching. I'm glad that you agree with the concept as such.
For point (5) you partially address, I didn't include it my proposal, but acknowledge that people may still want to pursue this type of categorization.
There several other meaningful categorizations we could develop (through bots, mediawiki, or other tools), but we have to start somewhere. -- User:Docu at 17:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This category name seems to be suitable for any picture of butterflies and blooms, not specifically those at Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle. I suggest to rename it "Butterflies & Blooms, Woodland Park Zoo". Is it possible to use "and" instead of "&" ? Or does the zoo uses consistently this name with "&" in all its publications ? Teofilo (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with including the name of the zoo. I believe they always spell it with an ampersand, though, and given that it is a proper name, we should presumably follow suit. - Jmabel ! talk06:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for one or two days, just in case other people add other opinions and if no major objection is raised,
Rename Category:Butterflies & Blooms to Category:Butterflies & Blooms, Woodland Park Zoo (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. Butterflies & Blooms;Butterflies & Blooms, Woodland Park Zoo;r;
No reason to add the & ampersand; as far as I can see, it is not a notable proper name and should hence be "Butterflies and blooms, Woodland Park Zoo". --Foroa (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find it on their map (quite large pdf file) ? All I could find is a "Butterfly Forest" with capitalization. But what we are looking for is a building, isn't it ? If we prefer to use a descriptive common name rather than the proper name in use there, something like "Woodland Park Zoo butterfly insectarium" would do. Teofilo (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this page they say "Butterflies & Blooms is now closed. It will not re-open in 2009" (with "Butterflies and Blooms" as html title). On the "overview" page we can see that it is (or used to be?) made of 3 parts "life cycle landscape", "butterflies in flight" and "conservation garden". The one with "greenhouse-like structures" is "Butterflies in Fligh[t]" (with or without capitalization). Teofilo (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Woodland Park Zoo butterfly exhibits" would be a convenient factual common name, which could be still be used next year if they reopen with a new fancyful proper name. Teofilo (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Butterflies & Blooms to Category:Woodland Park Zoo butterfly exhibits (2 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. Butterflies & Blooms;Woodland Park Zoo butterfly exhibits;r;
Rename Category:Butterflies & Blooms to Category:Woodland Park Zoo butterfly exhibits (2 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. Butterflies & Blooms;Woodland Park Zoo butterfly exhibits;r;
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.
Duplicate categories: I created this category for a newly imported image from en-Wikipedia, following a search which did not appear to find any existing categories for the artist's works. However, while I was populating the category with other works already on Commons, I did find an existing category, Category:Thomas H Shepherd, which the search had not brought up. One of these needs to be merged into the other. --AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2009 (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.
Rename Category:Nagasaki, Nagasaki (talk) to Category:Nagasaki (301 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. Nagasaki, Nagasaki;Nagasaki;r;
According to en:Talk:Nagasaki there used to be a convention to name en:Nagasaki that way. It was renamed together with a series of other places. (BTW the article en:New York might have been named similarly). If there are other Japanese cities that haven't been renamed yet, it's probably worth moving these too. -- User:Docu at 07:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a NC for Japan at en:WP:MOS-JP#Place_names. Not sure if these would really need category redirects, but where they are helpful, they work quite well (at least compared to other things at commons these days.) -- User:Docu at 09:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category(categories) of Japanese city(cities) / town(s) / village(s) is(are) named like <Category:(City name), (Prefecture name)>. In case of Nagasaki, the prefecture name and the city name are same. (This case exists also other cities, for example Kyoto and Osaka.) So I disagree to change the name of the categories of Japanese cities. LERK(Talk / Contributions / Mail)10:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a good habit in the United States and Japan to always add the state/prefecture after the city and that's coherent with the naming on the English wikipedia. There is no rule that forbids disambiguation. That way, we never have to add disambiguation. If they have a uniform and consistent way of naming, there is no reason to add confusion to save a couple of characters. --Foroa (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't twist my words. As user LERK explained, the hundreds of cities in Japan are all named <Category:(City name), (Prefecture name)>. The same for the majority of the city names in the US: <Category:(City name), (state name)>. That's what I call a habit. I see no reason to break a good practise and coherent naming system to gain a couple of characters in a couple of cases. And before all, it is in the first instance up to the Japanese contributors to define their naming system. --Foroa (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:New Rochelle, New York (talk) to Category:New Rochelle (0 entries moved, 135 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. New Rochelle, New York;New Rochelle;r;
There is only one New Rochelle. There is no need for disambiguation. Similarly all American cities without disambiguation requirements should be renamed with the most simple pattern:
removing the ", <statename>" part of the category. This is a huge category renaming. There is no need to hurry, but I think we should do it. Teofilo (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good habit in the United States to always add the state after the city and that's coherent with the naming on the English wikipedia. There is no rule that forbids disambiguation. That way, we never have to add disambiguation. Let's keep that good habit and we will have much less unnnecessary moves to make. Let's not create unnecessarily extra work. --Foroa (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be a huge moving project, I totally agree. But simply because something is huge should not prevent us from thinking about it. It would require building a consensus, and carefully planning. But you must also consider the advantages. For example if you type new rochelle in the search engine right now, the category does not show up in the first 20 search results. You need to type new rochelle new york to have the category show up. On the other hand if you type new orleans, because that "comma space statename" thing was not added, you get the gallery page and the category in the first 2 results of your search. Perhaps many American citizens know that new orleans is in Louisiana and would be able to type new orleans, louisiana. But I think most of the European people are unable to tell the state name which goes with a given american city. So I think this question is also a question of usability. Also, perhaps a number of French people would remember that New Orleans is in "louisiane", but would not be able to spell "Louisiana" in English. The longer a name is, the bigger the probability that people type a typing or spelling mistake. Teofilo (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2009 (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.
The original name of this category was "Interstate Highways in New York" (note the capital H); however, a user unilaterally and incorrectly changed the capitalization of the category name. My reasoning on why this is wrong is here; in short, using a lowercase h means that this category can be interpreted to include any interstate (that is, more than one state) highway that enters New York, whereas it should only be for highways in the Interstate Highway System, which is what the uppercase H would indicate. The same issue is prevalent here for U.S. Highways, but let's see where this goes first. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats07:02, 22 July 2009 (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.
Overcategorization. There is no reasonable prospect of growth in this category as it is highly unlikely that there will be art works of the genitalia of male animals other than human beings. --— Cheers, Truth'sOutThere–talk–08:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hi again truth; you do seem to have quite an agenda against my categorizations! i think perhaps you should consider your nominations more carefully. your comment in this case shows an amazing ignorance of the subject. setting aside consideration of purely mythological creatures, there are endless cultic/religious representations of other species which often involve genitalia. there are also representations in erotic art & more casual, or even humourous art. i'm not clear if your problem is with the subject of genitalia, or with understanding how logical categorization of topics works, in an archival files system, but your nominations are beginning to border on vandalism. please think them through more carefully in the future! cheers Lx 121 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment i see that you are also in the habit of depopulating & uncoupling categories when u nominate them for deletion. please stop doing that; at best it's cheating, at worst it is vandalism. Lx 121 (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really. You do know they sell blow-up sheep as sex toys, right? There is and will continue to be a history of art works with genitalia of male animals.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, Lx 121. I have nothing against you personally (I don't know you), but as regards this particular category, I stand by the reasons for my nomination. You say that "there are endless cultic/religious representations of other species which often involve genitalia" and that "there are also representations in erotic art" and "[humorous] art", but I don't see a single example in the category. I am also doubtful whether such images would focus merely on the genitalia of these male animals. It seems more likely that the images would be of the entire artwork, in which case they would be more appropriately placed in a different category, such as a subcategory of "Category:Erotic art" (perhaps "Category:Erotic art involving animals"). I think it is very unlikely that there will be many images of artistic depictions of the genitalia of different male animals, to the extent that we will need to subcategorize them by species (e.g., "Category:Male genitalia of horses in art", "Category:Male genitalia of sheep in art").
I stumbled on the categorization scheme that you have created at "Category:Genitalia" by chance while looking for suitable images for an article on puberty that I am working on at the Simple English Wikipedia. Frankly, I think there are serious problems with it. There is excessive overcategorization as many categories have been created that do not have reasonable prospects for growth. Also, I think that the "Category:Anatomy" branch is better preserved for human beings, and that images relating to non-human animals should be classified under "Category:Zootomy". I will make a proposal over at "Commons:Categories for discussion", and invite you to comment on the matter there. — Cheers, Truth'sOutThere–talk–19:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
your arguement "to the extent that" misses the point of wmc; commons is a media archive NOT a photo-album, or a gallery, or a picture club. it is our job to sort & organize all this material into a searchable database; using the godawful, inadequate tools in mediawiki software. it doesn't matter if there are a hundred thousand files, or only one, or only the future possibility of files fitting the topic, the basic schema needs to take the possibility into account. right now, assuming "in art" gets a better definition, i could probably find at least a few dozen-odd examples of artistic depictions of non-human genitalia as a major component of an artwork. & commons is getting larger every day...
oh, & good luck trying to find anything to use for the subject of puberty; there's a healthy tribe of censoring deletionists working to cleanse wmc of "bad" files; i had a small number of items earmarked for potential use @ wikip, but none of them survived the deletion "debates". i could link you to a few exchanges if you'd care to attempt a request to restore. don't hold your breath tho... Lx 121 (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Prosfilaes, I assume that most users of inflatable sheep are men, in which case wouldn't the sheep have female rather than male genitalia? Or are there a lot of gay sheep fetishists out there that I don't know about? :-) (Note: this is not an endorsement of "Category:Female genitalia in art, by species".) — Cheers, Truth'sOutThere–talk–19:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. as i said, the anatomy & sex stuff is a work in progress; nobody else seems to have bothered in the x-years that wmc has been around, so i'll have to ask you to be patient.
2. if you don't understand thatanatomydoes not' inherently mean human anatomy, i invite you to read the wikipedia article on the subject, then check the references (& technically humans are a type of animal, which would place human anatomy as a subcategory of zootomy, if you want to go to that much trouble... ). human anatomy is a sub-discipline not the primary definition of the term.
3. if you want a nice tricky example, try this out: dessicated genitalia (non-human), used as a cult/totemic object. how would you define that as a sub-category, re: art? or various sub-categories of japanese erotic art involving non-human subjects...
the following is an unindented continuation of the discussion in general, & not a response to the user truths'outthere
actually, scratch that this schema is flawed in its basic concept; "in art" is hopelessly vague & badly worded; it needs fixing at a more fundamental level. i don't care what you do with this category, it needs to be scrapped anyway.
"in art" needs to be better-defined.
then specify the anatomical feature (genitalia)
then gender (including capacity for categorizations beyond the obvious male/female
then species (including categorization for fictional species, ambiguous or non-identifiable/non-specific species, as well as anthropomorphic representations of genitalia depicted on non-humans; which more or less belongs as a sub-cat of fictional)
in other words: wp:idgaf, & if invoking wp @ wmc is a problem, see wmc:bar :P
the problems with organizing this section of wmc's database run deeper that this debate has scope for, so i'm done here.
i need to figure out how to fix the root problems with the definitions, & before i do that, i need to decide if wmc is worth the time & effort.
right now, neither answer is clear;
it would be nice if there were more people @ wmc who had read the project's mission statement, knew what a media archive is supposed to be, & how to organize one >__<
Indeed, we have already boys, children and girls per country. And what makes "young people" different ? What is the definition of "young" ; all ages between children and 25 year ? --Foroa (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Young people in Russia" might be better than "Young people of Russia" because the location of the photograph is easier to know than the actual nationality of the depicted people. (American tourists in front of a Russian tourist spot in Moscow can be "young people in Russia", even if the photographer didn't ask them to show their passport). Teofilo (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Young women by country and I think a similar "by country" subcategorization would be a convenient way to diffuse overcrowded Category:Young men too. The "young people" categories should be used as
1) supercategories for "young men" and "youg women" subcategories
2) a categorization of pictures showing groups of young men and young women together.
Anyway, without clear definitions, those categories will always be a mess and subject to recurring disputes. --Foroa (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the issue to User:AnRo0002, who created the template (but did not do the original categorization), who suggested that he preferred the establishments category tree, because railway stations are often renovated or expanded (and, thus, it is presumably difficult to settle on one year in which they are built or completed). However, that's true of all types of building, and if we follow that logic, we should therefore be collapsing Category:Establishments by year and Category:Buildings by year of completion into one category tree (which makes no sense). It would be nice if there was a consistent distinction between the two category trees. --skeezix1000 (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose to keep the categories within establishments by year because the opening date of a train station is in many cases different from the date of the building. When you compare it for example to monasteries: A monastery or a cathedral founded in the 7th century with 18th century architecture is categorized as "religious organizations established in the 7th century" and "18th century architecture". For the buildings of train stations schould be used another category tree. --anro (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've raised two issues. First, every other type of building can similarly give rise to a situation whereby the completion date differs from the opening date. That's not at all unique to railway stations, and doesn't mean that we should treat railway stations differently than other buildings. Nor does including railway stations in the establishment category tree help that situation, as year of establishment and year of opening are not necessarily the same thing (a stronger argument can be made that the year of opening is the year of building completion, as that is the year that the station is fully functional for the first time).
Second, as for Cathedrals and monestaries being included in the establishment tree, those two types of building differ significantly from railway stations. The difference is that a Cathedral has a related congregation and a monastery has a related religious order or the like, and the congregations and orders are organizations that would obviously fall into the established organizations category tree (e.g. "religious organizations established in the 7th century"). Technically, such organizations should probably have their own categories, separate from the buildings they occupy, but the two are so interrelated it probably is difficult to do (esp. since most files would relate to the physical buildings). Railway stations, on the other hand, are strictly buildings that don't necessarily have a related organization. Certainly categories related to the railway company belong in the establishments tree. And where a special corporation or organization exists (or existed) to build/run a railway station(s), we should certainly create a parent category for that entity and ensure that it is included in the establishments tree. But given that a railway station is not synonymous with a related organization in the same way as, say, a monastery, it belongs in the buildings category, along with town halls, shopping malls and airports.
The solution I would propose here is to make sure that we have railway companies and organizations are properly categorized and included in the relevant establishments categories, but in the meantime make sure the actual station buildings are moved to the buildings category. --skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I can see some situations where an airport, given that the larger ones operate out of numerous terminals and support buildings, could fall into an establishments category, because the size and nature of the airport is more comparable to an organizational entity than a mere building. Most railway stations, however, consist of one main building (even where the station has accessory and out buildings, there is usually one main terminal building). I suppose, however, there may be some large railway stations that are comparable to large airports in the above-described sense, and we could include those particular stations in establishment categories. However, that would be on a case by case basis, and the template's default option should still be limited to the buildings category tree. Let me know what you think. --skeezix1000 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just coming back to my arguments from the beginnings: 1st I have not established this category within this category tree "establishment" I have just facilitated it by creating the templates. 2nd. I still belive its a huge difference between the establishment of a train station and the building, coz most of the train stations established in the 19th century have newer buildings. I do not categorize e.g. a gothic cathedral built in the 13th century as a 6th century building when a former building was set up centuries before. For the Buildings there might be created a different category tree "train stations built in xxx" but for the opening date i still think the "establishment" tree schould be kept. --anro (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the case above, I found that Category:Girls is placed in Category:Children, but contains mostly teens and young women, following colloquial use uf the term.
This should be clarified. For symmetry with Category:Boys, which won't be applied to adults, I suggest to restrict the girls accordingly and move the files to Category:Young people and below.
Keep Category "Girls" is useful as subcategory of category:Children by gender. That some people put images by slang usage that should more properly go into Category:Young women is not an arguement against having the category, but rather that some images should be more precisely categorized. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do NOT want a deletion I just want a clear cut for the content of this category. In my world cyclists are people on a bike. They MAY be sportspeople but it could also be a guy in China takeing his chickens to the market.
We have Category:Cycling (sport) with the "(sport)" there is no doubt it is about sport. My dictionay (danish-english) says that the english word for a "cykelrytter" (in Danish a person from ie Tour de France) is a "racing cyclist". With that knowledge i would say that sportspeople should be in a subcat of Cyclists ("Racing cyclists" or "Cyclists (sport)"). --MGA73 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good place to discuss it. You might want to suggest a category description and possibly a some corresponding sorting guidelines (preferably not in Danish though). -- User:Docu at 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out en:Bjarne Riis and there they call him a "road bicycle racer" and an other guy was called a "racing cyclist". If it is common to refer to them as "bicycle racers" the category should be called that but a native english should know better. --MGA73 (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that ordenary people are not likely to get an article :-) But it is likely that commons will have images of ordenary people on a bike. --MGA73 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most important is that the naming style in a particular region is consistent. And that is generally the case with the edits from Giovanni Dallorto in Italy. With his work force (232.000 edits) and his often very long and detailed category names, he must have a consistent category naming system. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normaly, only English names should be used. The exception is when the castle has a formal proper name, for which some of the Châteaux apply, but certainly only a minority. You might be more tolerant for that rule for things like châteaux, castello and so on, but you migh change your mind when you encounter castles like Крепост, Hrad, Linnus, Burgo, Dvorac, Pils, Pilis, Kasteel, Vár, Крепост, Burcht, Câté, Zamek, Cetate, Замок, Kalaja, Hrad, Grad, Замак, Linna, Borg, ปราสาท, Kale, Замок, Tchestea, Pėlis. --Foroa (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can bring harmonization by allowing only a limited set of patterns :
I don't think it is good to allow two naming patterns in English. It should always be "Bristol Castle" and never "Castle (Bristol)". If we find more than one castles called "Bristol" they will be called "Bristol Castle (California)", "Bristol Castle (New York)", "Bristol Castle (Massachusetts)", not "Castle (Bristol) (California)" "Castle (Bristol) (New York)", "Castle (Bristol) (Massachusetts)".
I share your view concerning the tolerance of local languages. The problem is that Wikimedia Commons is influenced by the English language Wikipedia, and the English language Wikipedia is perhaps too tolerant with the "châteaux" and the likes.
Hello. Yes, I am using a consistent pattern in categorising. The simplest one: Name (town), as in the Italian Wikipedia, where I started from. When the category has an English name, I use the English name: Castle (Gorizia). When the object has an Italian name, I keep it: Castello sforzesco (Milan) or Castello sforzesco (Pavia). This systenm is consisten all trhought: Cathedral (Gorizia) - Central Station (Gorizia) - Archbishopry (Gorizia) and so on.
Of course everything can be discussed and changed. But the only thing I ask for, is to avoid to use a different, original, separate and creative criterion for EACH category. I moved this category from "Castello di Gorizia" (in Italian!). Do you want to have "Gorizia castle" instead? Go for it. But please change the whole category "Castles in Italy", which currently needs a thorough revision, and invert all other Italian cathegory.
My request is that one must know in advance and by heart how an image will be cathegorised in Commons, be it as "Gorizia Cathedral" or "Cathedral (Gorizia)". The only thing wa may not afford here, given the gigantig numebr of uncategorized images about Italy, is using a different criterion for each cathegory.
By the way, to date each country moved with a certain, limited freedom. The French example concerning castles shows it clearly. Ditto for Germany: Category:Castle Colmberg. Therefore categories about England are in no way a standard. They are merely the way categories are dealt with in England. Not the yardstick. In short: criteria may vary from country to country, unless a general plan of harmonising was started, as in the case of cataloguing in museums (but not in case of castles). However, within the same nations they should be consistent. For this reason whatever the final decision we may take, "Castello di Gorizia" is simply wrong, since this is not the name of the castle, but merely a generic name, and as a rule already agreed upon generic names should be translated into English.
Of course I'd like to keep all Italian names and have the whole of WikiCommons in my oen language, however Commons is a transnational project, and a common language must be used. While waiting that everyone learns Italian, then, giving English this role is fine for me :-) Best wishes --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cathedrals should be named according to one the following patterns :
My sources (Oxford Guide to Style, Concise Oxford Dictionary) give "St" (no dot) as the abbreviation for "Saint", and "St." (with dot) for "street" (en:Talk:St Catherine's College, Oxford)
I would tend to be tolerant to using Italian (Cattedrale di Ss. Ilario e Taziano) (See en:List of cathedrals in Italy) (or French speaking tolerance of Category:Cathédrale Saints-Michel-et-Gudule de Bruxelles (adding "de Bruxelles" is probably unnecessary, by the way), but as Foroa said earlier, this creates an injustice if we refuse to be tolerant with other roman character languages, not to speak about chinese character names or cyrilic charcater names...
If we define a naming convention for cathedrals or castles, we should probably define first to which buildings this should apply. It's one thing to place a series of castle-like buildings into a category named "castles", but another one to name a category for each one of these "Castle". At least one of the "château" listed above isn't really a castle, but a restaurant named "château". Many of the samples lack interwiki links, so it's hard to tell what they are about and how they are named in Wikipedia. If everybody already translates it as "castle", it's likely that this is reflected in Wikipedia and a convention isn't really needed. If it's not, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to introduce a translation. Consistency in formatting throughout a region is useful and, at least, categories for the castles of a region should use "castle", e.g. I'd rename Category:Castelli della Valle d'Aosta to Category:Castles of Aosta Valley (consistent with Category:Buildings in Aosta Valley).
BTW, there were lengthy debates about the "st."/"st" over at en.Wikipedia. Not sure if they really came to a conclusion. -- User:Docu at 08:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is presented in a wrong way. First, most "xxx Castle" or "Castle yyy" categories, are not really proper names but reinvented names because the real proper names are unknown or less popular. As such, according to the english rules, "xxx castle" should be written with castle in lower case. But anyway, those categories fall under the commons naming rules as I see them in order of priority:
"Castle in/of xxx" This is by far the preferred Commons format. ("Topic preposition qualifier", "Castles in xxx", "castle of xxx" when there is only one castle, like "churches in/of xxx")
As the in/of/from often creates problems, we see that an upcoming tendency is "(yyy) castle, xxx" where xxx is the place. Indeed, the latter avoids not only the in/of/from problem, it is easily extensible for places that need disambiguation terms.
another variation is "castle (yyy)" which I should not promote.
As a conclusion, it makes no sense to discuss if the (invented) castle name should be "xxx Castle" or "Castle yyy" as we are talking about inventing proper names while the commons rules are clear for such naming. --Foroa (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the "xxx castle" solution Foroa mentioned would be worth to be included as a suggested naming solution (not necessarily a naming convention) for cases where one hesitates on how to name a category. -- User:Docu at 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated castle at Gorizia should certainly be moved. For English category names, wherever the subject, "Location (castle)" is unacceptable as it is normally totally unidiomatic in English. The 3 castle versions given above should normally be used, but if a different name is normally used, that should be be used here - eg "Tower of London", "Bastille" (not now obviously) etc. Most cathedrals, local or foreign, except those of major capital cities, are known in English as "Location Cathedral" and this should be followed. Who knows the dedication of Lincoln or Chartres Cathedrals? This is in fact the same in the major European languages - compare Salzburg & Vienna in the different languages. If you go for the most formal name, you have to include "Basilica" for half the Catholic ones, which is not normally used and will confuse people. Omitting the location just because the dedication may be unique for a cathedral is frankly crazy, and will make searches very difficult. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created coast of Var, and then user:Millevache changed into Coasts of Var.
In French people usually say "côte varoise", not "côtes varoises".
I know that in English using the plural "coasts" as a generic name even when no plurality is meant is more usual than in French, but using "coast" in singular to mean a single territory where a given Sea meets the land is not strange either. For example Ivory Coast (not Coasts) is quite a large country, and a long stretch of beaches and harbours.
When there is clearly a West coast and an East coast like in Corsica, or more than one sea like in Finistère, the plural is better, but for most French departments the singular seems better.
So what I propose is
at department level : Category:coast of <department name> (except special cases like Haute-Corse or Finistère)
at region level : Category:coasts of <region name>
Most of these categories have not yet been created, so we are entirely free to choose whatever we like, without fearing to have too much work to do moving files and categories.
Hi and thank you for letting me know about this discussion. I perfectly understand your point and I had it in mind when I did the initial change. In the end, I have changed "coast" into "coasts" for homogeneity reasons. All other categories for other countries are "coasts". More generally speaking, the vast majority of categories in commons are in plural form. Also, we could find counter examples for many departments: CoastS of Bouches-du-Rhône could be the coast of the Mediterranean Sea or the coast(s) of Étang de Berre, to name just one. From my experience with Wikipedia and Commons, if we want to make exceptions, we will end up talking for a long time about each department until we realize, that, yes, most of them have "coasts" and not a single coast. So in order to avoid this unnecessary exercise, I would rather chose "Coasts of" as a general rule for any French entity. Cheers. Millevache (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I know that lakes have "shores" rather than "coasts", but I believe that many shores are already or will anyway be sorted under "coasts". For instance: "Category:Beaches of France" is under "Category:Coasts of France". Beaches obviously could be along seas, lakes or even rivers. Just wanted to address this point before someone else does, and I remain in favor of the plural for "coasts". Note that referring to a specific coast in singular form is perfectly valid, and is already the case for instance in "Category:Côte d'Opale". Millevache (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK let's go for "coasts of" at all levels, then.
For beaches we could divide categories with "Sea beaches of <department name>" , "Lake beaches of <department name>", "River beaches of <department name> when needed. There is already a small Category:Lake beaches which could be developped. Teofilo (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't really care which of these is merged into the other, but clearly they should be merged. Both are heavily populated, and mean exactly the same thing. -- Jmabel ! talk00:11, 9 August 2009 (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.
The question is which name we should use. I quote from something I recently wrote in en:Monotropa hypopitys:
:The species name is from [[Latin]]ized [[:en:Greek language|Greek]] ''hypo-'', "under", and ''pitys'', "[[pine]]", referring to where the Pinesap often grows.<ref>[http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=163883-2&back_page=%2Fipni%2FeditSimplePlantNameSearch.do%3Ffind_wholeName%3DMonotropa%2Bhypopitys%26output_format%3Dnormal IPNI Plant Name Details] (2005). Retrieved on 2009-08-08.</ref> However, [[Linnaeus]] misspelled it ''hypopithys''. Many authorities have followed his spelling.<ref>USDA, NRCS (2009) [http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MOHY3 Plants profile for Monotropa hypopithys (pinesap)]. Retrieved on 2009-08-08</ref><ref>[http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=503871 ITIS Standard Report Page: Monotropa hypopithys] (2009-06-24). Retrieved on 2009-08-08.</ref><ref>Iqbal Dar, M. [http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=5&taxon_id=242413733 Monotropa hypopithys in Flora of Pakistan]. eFloras.org. Retrieved on 2009-08-08</ref> On the other hand, it has been stated that the spelling "is generally treated as correctable to 'hypopitys'",<ref>[http://www.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research-curation/research/projects/linnaean-typification/detail.dsml?ID=592400&listPageURL=list%2edsml%3fVarqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26CVarqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26CGenusqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26CSpeciesqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26Species%3dhypopitys%26sort%3dGenus%252cSpecies%26Speciesqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26Genus%3dMonotropa%26Genusqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26CSspqtype%3dstarts%2bwith Monotropa hypopitys in the Linnaean Typification Project] (2009). The National History Museum. Retrieved on 2009-08-08</ref> as followed by other authorities.<ref>Qin, Haining; Stevens, Peter F.; Wallace, Gary D. [http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=200016135 Monotropa hypopitys in Flora of China]. eFloras.org. Retrieved on 2009-08-08.</ref>
:{{reflist}}
The sources I checked used M. hypopithys, hence my confusion, but your sources look good to me. In any case, it is better to have them all in one category and gallery with redirects. Thank you, Walter Siegmund(talk)03:58, 11 August 2009 (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.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This 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.
Somewhat in the same vein of the "Interstate highways in New York" CFD that I filed in July, the name of this category should have a capital "H". In addition, the true name of this category should be Category:Road maps of Interstate Highways in New York, both to comply with en.wiki category naming conventions (since that's cited as a base for commons naming conventions) and to fully reflect its status as a subcategory of Road maps in New York. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats19:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the propsed renaming, but the correct spelling is "Tone-mapped images". I have fixed that in the templates. -- H005 (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As there were no opposes for more than 6 weeks now, I have moved the category and its subcategories to Category:Tone-mapped HDR images -- H005 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC) And as I have no idea how this discussion can be closed officially, I have removed the proposal template nonetheless. -- H00521:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I think we should find a way to name them in a standardized, neutral way, e.g. in alphabetical order linked with the word "and", unless there is a specific reason to do differently. -- User:Docu at 03:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about "&" instead of "and"? More language neutral and when people see it being used they pick up on it faster since it's less common and stands out more. Alphabetical, yes. But I don't it's worth renaming all the existing ones just to do this. I doubt having a guideline would help much with avoiding duplicate categories. The people that make them aren't experienced enough to even look around in existing categories (assuming the existing one is properly categorized itself) let alone take the time to find and read some policy page. I think I'm just going to delete those first two you listed since they just redirect to each other and are empty. I just hope that the formation of a guideline doesn't encourage the unnecessary creation of these categories. They're actually not that useful as a categorization method (except for world leaders I guess). Rocket000 (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your last point, but I don't think the situation before the guideline was satisfactory.
To simplify the work of those that upload a series of images of, e.g. Barack Obama or Dimitry Medvedev, I kept around redirects from the format they were using before, e.g. the first two above should redirect to Category:Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama. The added advantage is that one doesn't need to sort the names before selecting the category (some names are hard to sort).
"&" is generally used in company names, so even if it's language neutral, one might think of this rather than just a category of images of the two. -- User:Docu at 07:39, 23 September 2009 (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.
This appears to have been moved from Category:Cable cars in Seattle a couple of years ago at my request, apparently based on a misunderstanding. Judging by other pictures, cableways are overhead cable-based transport, sort of like ski-lifts. Seattle once had one of those (the Skyride within the Century 21 Exposition grounds, later Seattle Center) but we don't have a picture of that. The pictures we have in the category all relate to cable car infrastructure. I believe we should restore Category:Cable cars in Seattle, move these pictures back there, and either delete the present category or reserve it for if we get any pictures of the Skyride.
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.
The name is neither in Czech nor in English. The Czech name is "Václavské náměstí", the Engish translation ise "Wenceslas Square". The current category name is mistaken ("V" instead "W").
This square have an establihed Engish version but I believe, the best and most exceptable name for a category is such name which is inscribed in maps and plans of Prague and at street signs. I believe, English-language maps of Prague state Czech names of streets and squares and districts. Let's remind that most of other Prague streets and squares hasn't an established English translation.
Category:Václavské náměstí (Prague). This option is consonant with most of English-language maps and plans of Prague: the name of city is in English, names of streets and squares is in Czech
Category:Wenceslas Square (Prague). This option is more homogenic, city name is in brackets after usance in the field of Czech geographic topics at Commons
I also agree. This square has an established English name, which should be prefered. The model for the cat names over here should be the English WP, not the Czech one. Fransvannes (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2009 (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.
In general, I think it's a good idea to group the images of aircraft in this way. It's likely that this has improved categorization of images. I'm not entirely happy with the names subcategories are using. I was wondering if these should use an additional element to the registration itself, e.g. "Aircraft registration number ASDF" or "Aircraft ASDF" etc. -- -- User:Docu at 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good category and initiative. But if we have more such "pseudo random" named categories, we will have sooner of later a clash. Moreover, each category name must at least say what it is about. So there should be indeed at least a recognisable pre- or postfix such as with category:Ships by IMO number. I guess that most of it could be changed by a bot. --Foroa (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Changed my mind! Postfix instead of Prefix! Makes life much easier in terms of sorting. I think a simple ...(aircraft) could be a good solution. Example: "Category:D-ABCD (aircraft)" Gomera-b (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As of about two weeks ago I have begun adding the aircraft registration to the Wikimedia category. I agree that postfix (aircraft) is a good idea - Arpingstone (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine for me. What I am concerned about, and I honestly don't quite know where to take it up, is that by adding these categories, such as in Category:Braathens, we are making it a hassle to actually use categories, because I then have to go into ten subcategories to find a suitable image for an article, when I yesterday could see all the images in the category. Please advise me if there is anywhere else I can discuss this matter. Arsenikk(talk)22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even if the consensus is for moving them to ASDF (aircraft), cfd discussions are generally open for at least two weeks. If some categories would already be using the new format, I'd just skip them when renaming. Besides, there is just one bot question I need to solve: the deletion of the old categories (mainly a permission question). -- User:Docu at 07:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we have to wait that long; I could close this almost immediatly as the current naming is against the Commons naming rules (A category name must state what it contains). I think that:
We have to define and agree upon the precise prefix and the sortkey rule
Delete the lot, this is not a good way to categorise, particularly as the vast majority of these categories contain only a single file. It is now an absolute pain to find photos which we need. For example, if I need to find a 747 of Qantas, the only way under this categorisation scheme is to know the registration of the aircraft, and if I don't know this, I could end up having to wade thru a hundred potential categories (as per number of aircraft in the fleet). It is not a good way to categorise, and these categories should be deleted until such time as there is a decent way of making it easy for ALL users to find content. --russavia (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there was a category for 747s of Qantas before. You still need to do the same thing: find the category for 747s (that is Category:Boeing 747) and then the one for Qantas (Category:Qantas). On the later you click on "Catscan" and paste "Boeing 747" into the field "for pages by category" (or "для страниц в категории") and then click "scan". This should give you 19 images [9]. -- User:Docu at 11:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a lot more difficult if you simply need a, let's say, good picture of any 747 to use on your website. If there are no FPs or VIs of 747s, you're in big trouble. Airwolf (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess the internal search is acceptable as it's also based on categories and the idea is to search through categories. Will it work once the Qantas is sorted by registration? I suppose I should also have mentioned that, as it's likely that some images are not completely categorized, one would need to check related categories to get the full list (e.g. all Boeing, general airplane, Qantas or Australian airport categories, possibly aircraft registration subcategories that are not categorized by operator or manufacturer). -- User:Docu at 14:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be at least one admin who is willing to delete the old categories manually, so I can do the move tomorrow. -- User:Docu at 10:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that Multichill was prepared (= accepting to do it one day) to do the move and delete job when passing a properly formatted list (=if we provide him a proper {{move}} list). --Foroa (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC) + clarifications in parenthesises. --Foroa (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he offered to do it, but he didn't prepare for it, probably because there are some many other things he is doing and for which he already asks for help. -- User:Docu at 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Following the above discussion, all categories are now at "<registration> (aircraft)". The 2600 categories were moved by bot and mainly NuclearWarfare, Tiptoety, Juliancolton and Abigor deleted the old categories. -- User:Docu at 01:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reviewing w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) with regards to the use of abbreviations in category names and it seems that generally speaking, abbreviations should not be used but there seems to be some consensus that it be considered on a case by case basis. The bottom line is, I could find no definitive clear-cut policy on abbreviating the United States to U.S. for category names. I guess I would be ok with Teofilo's suggestion except there should not be a dash. So instead it would be Category:Sierra Nevada (United States). RedWolf (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
respectfully Oppose: in geography & related fields the established convention is to assign physical features as subcategories of other physical features NOT as subcats of political units. 2 different subjects, of 2 different kinds of mapping. we're doing it wrong @ wmc.... Lx 121 (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The name is neither in Czech nor in English. The Czech name is "Klánovický les", the Engish translation can be "Klánovice Forest" The whole name is a proper noun (toponym). The category name mixes Czech inflectional grammar (Czech adjective "Klánovický") and Czech capitalisation (only of the first word of multiword proper noun) with English word "forest".
There are two possible solutions:
Category:Klánovický les. This possibility supposes that toponyms that don't have an established English equivalent should be used in original language.
"Klánovický les" is the largest forest in Prague area (only the Prague part of this forest is 10 km2, the whole Prague area has 497km2). As it can be seen here, the adjective "Klánovický" is official written with "K" (not "k"). Czech adjectives derivated from proper nouns are written with minuscules generally. --ŠJů (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is en:Carsharing and en:Carpool (AKA car-sharing, ride-sharing, lift-sharing and covoiturage). You'd need to find a way to distinguish the two. Whatever name is chose, category descriptions should mention the other category. -- User:Docu at 06:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, carpooling is when multiple people ride together (usually to commute to work). Carsharing is when a car is available for short-term use by multiple people, who each use it separately (e.g. to run errands). (Just to make it more confusing, a motor pool is a form of carsharing, not carpooling.)
Thanks. It appears there was not much wrong with both of the categories. I just transferred one file. Also, I took up the suggestion to rename 'Carpool' to 'Carpooling'. Apdency (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly this explanation, en:Kiss & Ride is a form of carpooling (and the category may subsume photos of aboard, get out and waiting places and hardly something else), and "carsharing" category should contain photos of rental cars and car rentals or photos of co-owned cars. Is that so? --ŠJů (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: category descriptions updated, categories kept separate. Please make new requests once they have categories. -- User:Docu at 08:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Rename Category:Rivers in Italy by river to Category:Rivers of Italy by name (497 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. Rivers in Italy by river;Rivers of Italy by name;r;
The rename as such seems reasonable (as most other remaining "Rivers in" that should be renamed to "Rivers of"). Given that Category:Rivers in Italy by river is almost empty it isn't really of much use. Category:Rivers of France by name is helpful as one generally doesn't know which commune or department a river can be found in, but which country. Besides it simplifies checking rivers with similar or identical names. Thus the category for Italy should either be populated or deleted. -- User:Docu at 05:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least should be "Ministry" rather than "Ministery", but is it really "Ministry for Economics"? I'd expect "Ministry of Economics". -- Jmabel ! talk15:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just like for the US Departments, I think that the 3 following terms are correct, different between them and potentially correspond (in order of likelyhood):
Comment Good point. The category could be expanded. As the one image isn't terribly useful, we might as well remove it. -- User:Docu at 13:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I see that Category:Comarques of Catalonia was moved to Category:Regions of Catalonia on the basis that Comarques isn't English. I think this was a bad move. Comarca (the singular of Comarques) is more specific than region. It is as if we changed "county" to "region".
And, no, there really isn't a proper English word for comarca and to use the Spanish plural comarcas (doubtless a better known word to English-speakers) would be something of an insult to this Catalan-speaking region. - Jmabel ! talk17:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there have been discussions about that subject as you can see here. I think that this originates from the fact that there are four (co-)official languages in Spain and a number of other languages (not to mention the border zones), and Comarques is not Spanish. If one looks in en:Comarca and en:Comarcas of Spain, Comarques can have different names, comarques being less used than Comarcas. I think that user:Cookie (Anna at that time) decided to move to Category:Regions of Catalonia because there is no single comarca/comarques-like English name and because of the many attacks of Spanish people that try to get rid of all what is not English or Spanish. I was under the impression that using Comarques was an insult to some people in Spain, Comarcas an insult for others in Catalonia, which explains the supporting user above. So I would certainly ask the advice to natives that know the situation. I spend several months in trying to find a compromise for the Basque Country, and I can tell that the language issue in Spain is much more complicated and sensitive than in most other countries. If you rename Category:Regions of Catalonia, then you might have to rename a major part of Category:Regions of Spain. --Foroa (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The singular is comarca in both Spanish and Catalan. In Spanish, this pluralizes as comarcas; in Catalan as comarques. There would be potential for insult in using a Spanish-language loan word to talk about Catalonia, and it would be simply bizarre to use a Catalan loan word to talk about non-Catalan-speaking regions of Spain.
I see no problem about using comarcas for most of Spain, but comarques for Catalonia and Valencia. (I don't know whether there may be distinct terms in Galicia, the Basque Country, and possibly elsewhere such as Asturias.)
If we must stick with "regions" we need a comment at the head of the category explaining that this is for comarcas/comarques, not for arbitrary regions. - Jmabel ! talk16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I requested advice from User:Cookie. I think that there is a underestimated problem because in many of the mentioned or adjacent regions, there are people that want Spanish only in Spain. I've reverted many hundreds of edits that removed Galician, Catalan, Basque, ... documentation, IW's and categories. But I do agree that as a minimum, those categories need to be properly documented (there are several types of regions in Spain). --Foroa (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never intended to insult anyone by moving the category comarques to regions, my only intention was to avoid conflicts complying Commons rules. This category is a general container as well as the rest of them in Category:Regions of Spain. It is known that every region has its peculiar division, historical, traditional and/or administrative and this should be explained (as a short introduction on the head of the category as Jmabel suggests, for example) but, first of all, we must have in mind that Commons is dedicated to inform people from all over the world who might not understand the concept of "comarques", nonetheless they are familiarised with "regions", as every european country is categorized by regions, therefore, Comarques of Catalonia must follow the same scheme of categorization. Anyway, there is no reason to eliminate that title, the best way to keep it is to create a page/gallery called Comarques of Catalunya with a short introduction of the concept of comarca in several languages and some photos of every comarca, then people will be able to find that page in catalan and, at the same time, it will be posible to make a redirection with comarcas de Cataluña for non catalan speakers. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be misunderstanding me. There is nothing insulting about regions; the potential insult (to Catalan speakers) would be to use the Castilian Spanish comarcas.
I think that you think too much in a proper administrative way where the administration is clearly split in levels and a hierarchy. To quote from en:Comarcas of Spain, : "In Spain traditionally and historically, some autonomous communities are also divided into comarcas (singular comarca). A comarca is roughly equivalent to a US "county" or an English district. In some of the regions (e.g. Comarques of Catalonia) they are regulated by law and even their comarcal councils have some power, and therefore are clearly defined. In some other (e.g. Extremadura) their legal status is not very formal so they rather correspond to natural areas (valleys, mountain ridges, and so on)." And you have to add to this the concept of several "nationalities" and language regions, historical regions (and kingdoms), geographic regions, juridic regions, electoral regions, religious regions, regions extending in other countries ...
There are several countries that have overlapping regions that are next to impossible to grasp in a hierarchical three (Belgium for example where the regions (places) are in parallel and overlap with the communities (languages). If you fully understand en:Autonomous_communities#Constitutional_framework, then you could try to improve on that. (I dont want to be pessimistic, it is just extremely difficult --Foroa (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in some regions of Spain comarcas are loose. The present-day Catalan comarques are not, they have clear borders. There were also some historical comarques with different borders than the present-day ones (and of course many of those are now in southwest France), and many of those have poorly defined borders, but that's not what we are listing here. - Jmabel ! talk17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing stale thread. Let's try to keep this focused: If the subcategories are still specifically about "Comarques of Catalonia", please make the corresponding request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. If it's now about another country/autonomous region and/or administrative level, please open a new discussion. -- User:Docu at 07:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oh sorry, i forgot that Commons belongs not only to Wikipedias but also to Wictionary and many others projects. The lexical aspect can be useful to categorize. --ŠJů (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Verbs was about deletion. Here we talk about a merge and the best name and category tree design. If both categories are merged, and there are a See also Category:Avtivities in the Categorie:Verbs page, you will find all the activities indicated by verbs as fast as now. In the Category:Verbs must only content like Category:French pronunciation of verbs or illustrations of lexicalic or gramatical knowledge. It is not a good category tree to put all the activities indicated by verbs as subsubcategories of the following categories: Words, Writing, Verbs, Book market, Literature, Linguistics, Econonic history, ... Why should be a smoking vulcano categorized in a subsubcat of Category:Book market? If you want the word verbs then I suggest a main category Category:Content by verb or Category:Activities indicated by verb directly under Category:Topics and under no other categories. --Diwas (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)--Diwas (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the other way round: verbs is a superset of activities as verbs can relate to things that are are not directly activities such as emotions (hurting, loving), smiling, looking, smelling, heating, ... --Foroa (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if resting or being idle are (no) activities. Perhaps, it is a good way to have both categories because they are not 100 % equal. But i suggest to put the verbs-category near to the top, this way:
At this moment, there is a loop in the tree, cause
the category of writing as a Concept/Content/Process is not separated to the category of writing as a word/verb/part of speech
the category of verbs (list of all the verbs as Concepts/Contents/Processes/Statusses/...) is not separated to the category of verbs as a Part of speech/topic of Linguistics
the category of words (list of all the words as Concepts/Contents/...) is not separated to the category of words as a Part of speech/topic of Linguistics.
A category "Verbs" does not make sense since there are no images or movies of verbs. The only thing that would make sense would be a category "spoken verbs" with sound files. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Cwbm's right. It doesn't make sense. Verbs are parts of speech; they aren't the actual activities themselves. "Verbs" aren't the subject here. Rocket000 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have some problem with terminology of Czech pubs and restaurants. Typical popular facility in villages or cities are traditionally called "hostinec" or "hospoda" (diminutive "hospůdka"). Some of them are comparable with pubs, some of them are rather restaurants really. "Restaurace" (restaurant) is a term used little differently: a tap-room can be called "hospoda", but not "restaurant". A restaurant in modern hotel hardly can be called "hospoda" or "hostinec", but in the old days just "hospoda" or "hostinec" were typical hotels. I don't know an English word that would be a good equivalent of the Czech word "hospoda". It would be unsuitable to split facilities called "hospoda" into two different category branches, some of them as "pubs" and some of them as "restaurants". I consider as good idea to join pubs and restaurants into one category at every geographic level:
Rename Category:Pubs in Ostrava (talk) to Category:Restaurants and pubs in Ostrava (0 entries moved, 19 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Pubs in Ostrava;Restaurants and pubs in Ostrava;r;
Rename Category:Pubs in Prague to Category:Restaurants and pubs in Prague (0 entries moved, 137 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Pubs in Prague;Restaurants and pubs in Prague;r;
Do take a note that "pubs" categories don't prevail worldwide. Those categories exist only for 9 countries: Ireland, UK, New Zealand, Jersey and Australia, the Netherlands, Norway, Argentina and Israel. Very few countries, only two lands of the Continental Europe, no one of the all Central Europe. In addition, I have suspicion that Australian meaning of the word is utterly different toward the Irish or British one. I think, the category "Pubs in the Czech Republic" collects a content which would be categorized as "Restaurants" for near countries with a similar culture.--ŠJů (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose to create the category Category:Pubs in Central Europe and didn't lack for it, we have no similar category. I did claim that the word "pub" don't bear ship to the culture of Central Europe and that is difficult and useless to try to differentiate which "hospoda" or "Gaststäte" etc. is a pub and which isn't a pub. --ŠJů (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In many countries, pubs are something in between drinking (cafés) and eating places, but no real restaurants. You could use taverns, but this redirects to "public houses", which are pubs ... (I guess that in many non-English countries, the word cafés is used, pubs are reserved for English style cafés). It seems not a good idea to start to mix restaurants (which seems to be a pretty much uniformly used word across our world) with pubs. I think that it is sufficient to document properly with what you mean with pubs in the Czech Republic. Moreover, such a renaming would be confusing as a subcategory from "restaurants in the Czech Republic". Hospoda would probably map to Inns. --Foroa (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is more types of eating places (see Foroa) : cafe, bar, fast food etc. not only pubs and restaurants. If is category restaurants for all of them, it is not exact, but good solution.
The naming is historical. In the old days, every "hospoda" or "hostinec" provided full accomodation services and catering services. Nowadays, neither "hostinec" nor "hospoda" is perceived as accommodation unit. All inns are named "hotel" generally. Nowadays, "hospoda" aswell as "hostinec" are practically synonyms of both restaurants and pubs. (Cafés have absolutely different role here, more similar to a confectionery than to a "hospoda".) --ŠJů (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say avoid the word "pub" altogether. Its meaning varies too much from place to place. In the U.S., a pub is basically a restaurant and a bar combined. That's it. There is no association whatsoever with lodging. We call those hotels, motels, lodges, B&Bs, or inns. If the hotel is relatively small and looks like a big house, "inn" is more fitting. No one calls Holiday Inn a inn. Usually it's assumed they serve food and drink but it's not a requirement for the classification. Pub is actually not that commonly used in everyday language, but more what modern restaurants call themselves when they are going for that British/Irish theme. Some bars use it too but then it's one of those old-fashion terms like tavern or saloon. Cafés are for coffee and tea (sometimes with more food than coffeehouses but otherwise synonymous), and very rarely serve any alcohol.. So let's get technical and use "drinking establishments" for places you go to drink, restaurants for places you go to eat, alcohol may or may not be served ("eating establishments" would actually be worse here since "restaurant" has the commonly understood all encompassing sense), and hotels or inns (or whatever is appropriate) for places where you go to sleep, which may or may not include food or drink. Rocket000 (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think its clear Restaurants are places where you can eat (Czech word "restaurace" is equivalent, but also older Czech word "hostinec" can be used). Pubs ("hospoda" in Czech) is than a place majorly for drinking and not so much eating as stated by Foroa. We should be aware if photographers are able to distinguish between pub and restaurant. It seems they are, so no need to make chaos in here. Its the project for Wikimedians, it should be easy to find something in here!--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Hospoda" is from of old a term for full service, including eating. The "Slovník spisovné češtiny" explains it with the synonym "hostinec". An establishment which is intended primarily for drinking is called rather "výčep" or "bar" (or "nálevna" in slang). As regards a possibility of differentiation: what should be the main criterion? The word used at the signboard, independently of the fact what food is offered withinside? Or the fact whether a cook was present in that moment an season when the photo was taken? A typic poor "hospoda" has a kitchen but not always also sufficient staff to offer full sortiment of dishes. A good "hospoda" is in principle a restaurant. How you want to distinguish it? I think, "hospoda" or "hostinec" are rather traditional terms which are suitably used for centuries-old establishments, while a restaurant is rather a modern establishment. "Pub" is a word bundled with a specific British tradition, it hasn't an exact equivalent in Czech language and Czech culture. --ŠJů (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From the descriptions above, it doesn't sound like there's any significant difference between hospoda/hostinec and pubs in the UK. Some pubs also seem more like restaurants than drinking establishments. All that's needed I think is a note on the category saying something like "Drinking establishments in the Czech Republic, which usually also serve food, and are known locally as hospoda or hostinec." ghouston (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category-names for tank models, as for car models (or rifles), should not be in plural (tanks) but in singular (tank). Therefore, a user at the Forum has requested to change all tank-category names into singular form[12], and asked me to apply his request. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general convention is that category names be in plural (3.), possibly (4.). If the category is named after a specific model name, it would be (1.) or (2.). -- User:Docu at 10:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC), 10:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm not really interested in tanks, I hope user Roman, who original requested this, will participate in this discussion. The main issue was to change the cat names to singular, as this makes sense as with car or rifle models. Therefore, I would prefer either variant 1. or 5. As this request is not only for the AMX-32, but for all tank model cats (see under "Links to this page"), including such as Chieftain tanks, IMHO only your variant 5 would make sense. --Túrelio (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support Túrelio's proposal in any respect. The plural form of specific vehicle models is completely wrong. It would be the best if the person that initialized that mass dislocation would take part at this discussion, too. Besides, in my view solution no. 5 is the best. --High Contrast (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The person seems to be Foroa diff. I didn't find any corresponding request on talk.
Ok, maybe first the situation before I executed some cleanup in several armement categories. I spend an awfull lot of energy in cleaning up category names and experience shows that for categories, the first step is to have their naming consistent, and if needed, changing the naming notation in a second round. In Category:Main battle tanks, there where all sorts of naming rules, many of them plain wrong or against the basic Commons naming rule (COM:CAT: "The category name would be enough to guess the subject"). Obviously, then existing names as AMX-32, M47, MBT-70, T-55, T-62, Type 59, which I consider proper names, don't comply and become more and more in conflict with all sorts of alphanumerical namings such as for ships, aircraft, ...
Considering the main used naming in Category:Main battle tanks, the most consequent and easy way was to add the qualifier tank to the AMX-32, M47, MBT-70, T-55, T-62, Type 59... model names. It could have been xxx (tank) too, but the "xxx tanks(s)" form of naming was more prevailing. The form "AMX-32 Tank" is not acceptable as the tank is a generic term, cannot form part of the proper name and should hence not be capitalised. Commons uses plural for all its categories, including for example "Ford vehicles", not "Ford Vehicle". Basically it should be "Volkswagen Polo automobiles/cars/models", but we will all agree that we can drop the automobiles part of the name and that we can make an exception on the plural rule because "Volkswagen Polo's" or "Volkswagen Polos" would be quite funny.
So, we should not take the latter (exception) rule backwards and saying because we write "Volkswagen Polo" not in plural, the "xxx tanks" categories should be in singular as well. --Foroa (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can only answer in short due to lack of time. First part is OK, but that is not discussed here. Second part is particularly OK: the plural form of Commons cats is widely know (your "Ford vehicles" example), but this is not discussed here, too. Example: what about this: Category:M4 carbine? According to your logic that category name must be transformed into Category:M4 carbines. --High Contrast (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is very hard to agree on one scheme for categorynames. If you have only a few people you can ask it's quite easy. If you have a bunch of people who can't figure out one standart it's impossible to get rid of the mass many cooks have brewed (or: the mass many user who didn't know have created). I fully understand Foroa's solo attempt because it's not quite easy to figure out a standard on Commons (if it is possible at least). One problem is that some user want to have his or her own standard and do not accept anything else (maybe not here but it may would be like that if we would ask some more people). Another problem is that after some time nobody cares about such discussions any longer and they get lost somewhere on Commons. (I know that this is not actually a topic in this discussion. It's just about what beyond the rename thing is) @ topic: I would support either (1.) or (5.) but I would prefer (1.). The reason is that many tanks have a name or nickname (such as the Leopard 2) which should not be plural. In (1.) and (5.) the name is not changed ("Leopard 2s" or "Leoprads 2" would be such a unfeasible plural form; (2.)-(4.) don't change the name as well. I just think that we shouldn't have categorynames like "M4 carbines") even (1.) shows people who don't know Commons exactly that eg. "Leopard 2" is the tank's name. If there would be a car named "Leopard 2" "Leopard 2 (automobile)" could be used. (2.) has the upper case letter "T" so some people may think that the tank's whole name is different. (3.) and (4.) are plural (which is widely used on Commons) but (again:) I think that names shouldn't be plural (Latin names of species are also singular without "whateverspeciess"). Example: I would move Chieftain tanks to "FV 4201 Chieftain (tank)" or "Chieftain (tank)" and Leopard 2 tanks to Leopard 2 (tank). However, I would not delete the old categories but rather create category redirects (eg. Category:Leopard 2 got deleted even some may search fo that categoryname because nearly every Wikipedia calles the article about the Leopard 2 "Leopard 2" or use different letters like ja.wikipeda ("レオパルド2") which say "Leopard 2" in that specific language. Just da.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia have an addition) --D-Kuru (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
en:AMX can be anything and on Commons we have much more "product number" like categories, Commons is not a wikipedia
The basic Commons naming rule (COM:CAT: "The category name would be enough to guess the subject", AMX-32 stands for other things and products too, as here.
COM:CAT doesn't require to add a disambiguator either, nor do we have several categories named "AMX-32". Even if there are several Amsterdam, Category:Amsterdam doesn't have a disambiguator either.
"Consistent naming in a specific category" could be an argument, the purpose of this thread is to decide on that and clean-up after Foroa's solo attempt.
From my experience in categorizing numerous Navy images, using simply the name of the tank is to be most convenient way. -- User:Docu at 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed close:Kept There are two ways of looking at the category subject. Singular: the category subject is "the AMX-32" tank model design, illustrated with one or more images of "an AMX-32", a physical implementation of that design. Plural: the subject is AMX-32s, being the physical units which implement the AMX-32 model design. Without a clear category scheme, there is no way to decide this, since the plural and the singular are equally valid. Leaving it as it is saves work, of which we have enough. Since the change will bring little benefit to end users looking for media, this as good a way of deciding as any. Rd232 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC) ~~~~[reply] Done Closed per proposal.
I substituted the template, just to make sure it wont keep changing. "template fixed" hardly describes adequately what you did diff. -- Docu at12:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undone. I'll thank you for leaving my template alone, and for not reverting changes that were made in response to your remarks ("BTW, it's a category discussion, not a DR."). Can we start talking about the substance of the proposal yet? Rd232 (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed Keep per proposed close of 5 December. If in future category naming policy or a category scheme suggests changing the name, this naming should be reviewed. Rd232 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new request.
Rename Category:Changdeok Palace to Category:Changdeokgung (465 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. Changdeok Palace;Changdeokgung;r;
Rename Category:Changgyeong Palace to Category:Changgyeonggung (157 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. Changgyeong Palace;Changgyeonggung;r;
Rename Category:Deoksu Palace to Category:Deoksugung (129 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. Deoksu Palace;Deoksugung;r;
Rename Category:Gyeongbok Palace to Category:Gyeongbokgung (458 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. Gyeongbok Palace;Gyeongbokgung;r;
Rename Category:Gyeonghui Palace to Category:Gyeonghuigung (21 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. Gyeonghui Palace;Gyeonghuigung;r;
Rename Category:Unhyeon Palace to Category:Unhyeongung (85 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. Unhyeon Palace;Unhyeongung;r;
I originally requested for move on the above categories at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, but and admin directed me to use the place for anything other than simple and uncontroversial moves. They are about Korean royal palaces and residences and were originally at the names on the right column, but User:Gryffindor changed them without discussion via the first venue. The move was against the Korean naming convention at English Wikipedia and here. I did not know how to apply for moving the titles back at that time, but I know now. Unhyeon Palace is also the incorrect translation into English. So I'm requesting them to be back to the original titles. See also en:Talk:Gyeongbokgung#move_request and en:Talk:Changdeokgung#Requested move.--Caspian blue00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mispresent my stance and the naming convention. I honestly said what the categories have what position on English Wikipedia, while you misused the User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands function without saying anything about your previous attempt to move the title on English Wiki or your opposition against the existence naming convention for Korea subjects. If I have had been silent about the current status of the places on English Wiki and your previous moves, I would've not even needed this discussion. Your unilateral moves were "controversial", so I'm trying to reverse them.--Caspian blue12:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is he misrepresenting? Commons rules do stipulate that category names should be in English. Is it true that "Unhyeongung" is the Korean version of "Unhyeon Palace"? Wknight94talk14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He mispresented my rationale for the move to the original title as only for "Koreans". Unhyeongung is not a palace at all and "gung" can be translated into others than palace. Please follow the links that I presented above.--Caspian blue16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not requested them to be moved to 분류:경복궁 and others. Gyeongbokgung is the most widely used "ENGLISH" term that you'd know if even checking on the list listed.--Caspian blue17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support English names make only sense if they are accepted, common or a perfect translation that people can easily relate to. We will not translate en:Taj Mahal in "Gara mausoleum", en:Colosseum in "Rome amphitheatre", en:Gangaikonda Cholapuram in "The town of the chola who captured the Ganges", the US en:La Fortaleza in "The Fortress", the US en:Monticello in "Little Mountain", the US en:Taos Pueblo in "Taos town", en:Place de la Concorde in "Concorde square", Bundestag/Knesset/Duma in "Parliament of Germany/Israel/Russia" neither; so we have to be careful with translations and indeed rely on what is a long established name in reference works and on the en:wikipedia. Anyway, it makes no sense to have the same discussions as en:Talk:Gyeongbokgung and en:Talk:Changdeokgung over and over again. It makes no sense to "fabricate" English names if they are not 100 % correct and nowhere used. --Foroa (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The admino who moved the categories is not responsible for the move because Gryffindor did not honestly say about all the issues behind the renaming.--17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As there doesn't seem to be much support for the present naming, I'm moving them back to original name, keeping redirects. It's regrettable that this was moved in the first place, despite the controversial nature of the move. -- User:Docu at 09:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new request.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new request.
All images seem to be of the period when it was called Paetec Park and we don't really know how it will be called next year. Thus there isn't really a reason to rename this. -- User:Docu at 08:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new request.
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Rename Category:Hovercrafts (talk) to Category:Hovercraft (78 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. Hovercrafts;Hovercraft;r;
This category appears to be promotional in nature. From what I can gather, it is a fitness system that is the sole invention of the category creator; the only mention I can find of it anywhere is on his personal web page ([13]). The category is populated with a mix of self-portraits of the author exercising, and images of Greek and Roman statues (purportedly representative of the fitness program's ideals). This editor previously attempted to create a self-promotional article on enwiki (en:Upstream fitness), and has inserted promotional links to his category page here on Wikipedias in a number of languages: pt, en, fr, sk, ru, and probably others. For reference, he is currently blocked indefinitely on both enwiki and dewiki. --TenOfAllTrades (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category (content) are not the same. Category:Drawing Rail: only sketch object, detail, one object. Category:Rail track schemata: schema junction, station, operational solutions ... --Hapesoft (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diagrams of stations already have Category:Train station diagrams, and I'm not certain there is a need to make the distinction between diagrams of one object and multiple objects. Where would a diagram of one junction fit? Also many of the images in Category:Drawing Rail are also in Category:Rail track schemata. If there is a need to distinguish, then this category should be renamed as the current name suggests it should be a type of rail similar to bullhead rail and grooved rail. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the subcategories of Category:U.S. Routes by state use several different naming conventions, none of which are 100% correct. The correct naming convention should be "U.S. Highways in <state>"; the capital "H" in Highway indicates that the category is for routes in the U.S. Highway System. "U.S. highways" is wrong because the lowercase "highway" is a generic term for a road, meaning that the category would implicitly and incorrectly refer to all U.S. roads within a state, and since the state is in the U.S. it would thus refer to all roads in the state.
I propose the following:
Rename all "U.S. highways in <state>" categories to "U.S. Highways in <state>"
Rename all "U.S. Routes in <state>" categories to "U.S. Highways in <state>"
Myslím si, že by bylo vhodnější tuto kategorii přejmenovat buďto na Úholičky (železniční zastávka), nebo na Úholičky (train stop), jelikož železniční stanice má kolejové rozvětvení, což u Úholiček neplatí.
I think, that this category should be renamed either to Úholičky (železniční zastávka), or to Úholičky (train stop), since it isn't an actual station with rail junctions, but just a stop.
--DavidSpanel (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The naming policy and the question of distinction between "zastávka" (train stop) and "nádraží" or "železniční stanice" (train station) were disputed. Two possibilities was proposed:
var. 2.1: to make distinction ("Liberec, train station", "Všenory, train stop")
var. 2.2: to use "train station" for both types ("Liberec, train station", "Všenory, train station")
Most users supported 2.2. Please see the reasons there. Btw., it is IMHO an Austro-Hungarian speciality that we have no unified word for both types. Btw 2- in most of countries, such terminology distinction doesn't exist. In addition, at metro and at funiculars in the Czech Republic, all stops are named "stanice". Until recently (early 70-s) bus and tram stops are named "stanice" officialy too. --ŠJů (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen were without category and their pictures were being released in the categories art, design etc. Possible reasons: 1) The collective Drawers is simpler and more reasonable but is likely to be confused with (drawers = sliding boxes in a table etc). 2) draughtsmen and draftsmen are masculines (some women can even consider, with reason, such names as anti-feminist). Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen it is a category that was missing, it is a disambiguation and it is a way for the simplest word to establish itself with more intensity. (Google translator + little adaptations). Cordially,Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve categories, nine pages and one hundred thirty-one images of 'desenhistas' (unisex Portuguese word for drawers, draughtsmen or draftsmen) were without their own category, equivalent to that of painters, illustrators, etc. Of these, seven are described as drawers, dozens as draughtsmen and and dozens as draftsmen. Among the drawers, four are men and three are women. Of these women, one created a category in which title is the word (drawer), thus, in parentheses. Cordially, Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is questioning the need for this category, but I agree with Hesperian that the title sounds a little strange. That's why I made the proposal above. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Draughtswomen be a neologism. Word not existent in dictionaries as the Webster, for example. And it would, it seems, a neologism less reasonable than, for example, tripsigraphs or tripsigraphies as synonyms for the, also problematic, English and French rubbing and frottage. (Google translator + little adaptations + eventual errors), Cordially, Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)- Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not afraid of being accused of sexism. I created the category because there are some subtle signs that some men and women non-US, the Commons is worldwide, do not like to define those that draw only as draughtsmen or draftsmen. (Google translator + little adaptations + eventual errors), Cordially,Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of such category? we already have Comic Artist (by country) categories? The exact label of categories is imo irrelevant. What is important is their description. not their exact spelling or formulation Esby (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Vincent van Gogh for example made drawings, but wasn't a comic artist. So a category drawers/draughtsmen/draftsmen/designers is necessary I think. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 - Through no to have, before the category drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen, a category that would unite them, those that draw not are on the main page of Commons (with the architects, composers, sculptors, photographers, painters). 2 - In the English language exist and are used the three words (drawers, etc.). 3 - "Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen" is, unfortunately, a very long title. 4 - Suggestion: To maintain the category "Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen" and create a link "Drawers .." that under the mouse pointer would show the rest of the category name. 5 - To use this link "Drawers .." on pages where there was little space or aesthetic, and on the main page, where, where in disambiguation would be given its proximity to painters etc (to do justice to they that draw). (Google translator + little adaptations + eventual errors).Paulo Cesar-1 (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact several terms exist for a concept does not mean the corresponding commons category must be using all of these terms. English Wikipedia (and other Wikipedias) choose the most used term when several ones exists. The other terms are just redirects. see en:Draughtsman and en:draftsperson for example... Esby (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I requested the move of categories on delinker. Internationalisation progress in title might allow what you want to do Paulo Cesare-1 in the future. Esby (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, these are synonymous, and we should merge them. I don't have any preference about which way we go, or even whether we establish uniformity across all geographical areas, but we should not have both of these for the same place. -- Jmabel ! talk20:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer the term Apartment building. An apartment block is for me a huge isolated building and is always an apartment building, which can be as well a smaller building in a city with several apartments. --anro (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several weeks, no one else has weighed in. I have no objection to "Apartment buildings", but there is certainly no reason to have both. - Jmabel ! talk05:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
open again. Templates are still in the cats. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Closing - Changing cat to "Apartment buildings in Barcelona" as there is no reason to have both, and I think that "buildings" is clear. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
And we're supposed to follow that up here. :P As no one's replying here I'll close this up. If someone has more to add, the TOL talk page might be a better place for it. Rocket000 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My inclination is always get rid of highly subjective categories like this. I'd look through the content by hand and re-classify. But if someone had a meaningful definition for this, I'd be open to hearing about it. - Jmabel ! talk17:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to it. I additon, we should revolve, what indicia should be reasons for inclusion of some photo into this category. Does fall into it every photo made from bottom or unusual view? Or should be decisive some mood or feeling? --ŠJů (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we generally specify criteria for inclusion of images in "in art" categories? I thought this was generally left up to editors. Special types of photographs (e.g., black and white or sepia-toned) and rail tracks in media other than photographs (e.g., drawings and paintings) would be obvious candidates for this category, but I'm not sure if it is desirable or even possible to specify what sort of ordinary colour photographs of rail tracks should be placed there instead of in "Category:Rail tracks". By the way, the current images in "Category:Rails in art" are pretty "artistic". — Cheers, JackLee–talk–18:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Category:Rail tracks in art", it is good name. Each object has two views: Material and Abstract. For selection photo is used filter: substandard view, color balance, level of detail, composition, mood and feeling of the image ... Hapesoft (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No real strong opinion. The pictures I like the most show rails, not rail tracks. Not sure if the rails birds will cause problems as there many quite different types of rails. --Foroa (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Foroa - rails are intended to be components of rail tracks, but many images display rails in some other place, e. g. in a store room, steel works, during transporation of material etc., or separately (in a book, drawing etc.). --ŠJů (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To delete, because incorrect name of category. Files which contains this category are not artistic. Or are not sufficiently artistic. No mosaics, drawings, reliefs, paintings etc. --Starscream (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every photo has own artistic aspect. The heart of the matter is how large artisticness substantiates such categorization. --ŠJů (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The heart of the matter is how large artisticness substantiates such categorization. We should revolve what indicia should be reasons for inclusion of some photo into this category. Do you understand the question? IMHO none of the contained photos meet my criteria but somebody can have some different opinion. Usually use to be categorized this way mainly older photos of well-known artistic photographers only. --ŠJů (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be two issues emerging here:
The main issue is whether "Category:Rails in art" should be renamed "Category:Rail tracks in art". I think it should for the simple reason that the latter name is unambiguous. For the purpose of this discussion, I believe this is the only question that needs to be answered.
The subsidiary issue is whether there should be "in art" categories in the Commons in the first place, and if so, whether there should be criteria determining which images should be placed in such categories. This is a broad issue that needs more general discussion elsewhere, such as at the Village Pump. "In art" categories are common, and personally I think it would be extremely difficult to develop criteria for inclusion or exclusion. It would require an answer to the question "What is art?". I doubt if it will be possible to achieve consensus on the issue. It may be better to (or we may have no choice but to) let such categories remain, and leave it to the discretion of editors to decide what constitutes "art".
Ad 2), nobody impugned "in art" categories generally. With regard to depicted sculptures, reproduced paintings etc., we have no problem, independent of their artistic value. Only photographs are problematic. This category can remain tolerated. However, this is a typical case that gallery page would be more useful than a category. Gallery page is more suitable for aplying of subjective criteria as wall as for selecting of interesting images. --ŠJů (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem arises because most files in the Commons are in fact photographs, so there is the question of whether a particular photograph should go into main category for a topic (e.g., "Category:Rail tracks") or into the "in art" category ("Category:Rail tracks in art"). As a matter of principle there is no reason why photographs should be regarded as any less "artistic" than paintings and sculptures. Photography is a well established art form. Are you suggesting that in practice in the Commons only artworks other than photographs should be placed in "in art" categories, and that all photographs should be put in main categories? Perhaps it is worth raising the issue at the Village Pump. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–13:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think, placing into "in art category" should be "additional" in principle, it shouldn't preclude a categorization by location (if identificable), by type of depicted device (if it's specific) etc.
The common usage of "in art" categories is that they include subcategories by form: a photograph is generally conceived as a basic form of image, other forms as "special". "In art" categories are mostly used for grouping of special forms. If we should handle photographs similarly, we need to place all photographs into subcategories of Photographs by topic. We can see, only very few themes are represented here. Is it a good idea, to add millions of other images here? --ŠJů (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that there is no good reason to put a lot of images in "in art" categories rather than in the main categories dealing with the subjects of the images. But this is really not the right place for discussing what should be put into "in art" categories. I suggest that the matter be raised at the Village Pump. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–10:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. As I said, what should or should not be placed in "Foo in art" categories is a subject for discussion at a different forum, such as the Village Pump. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–04:22, 26 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.
Delete This seems not to be going anywhere. For some reason, Mattes who created the categories is not responding ... it would have been faster if you had marked the empty categories with {{Speedy}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (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.
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:Illustrations of Trilobita and all similar like this should be deleted also. For example every file in Category:Trilobita and in all of its subcategories are illustrations so the category Illustrations of Trilobita is an exact duplicate. Definition of an illustration from English wikipedia: "An illustration is a visualization such as a drawing, painting, photograph or other work of art that stresses subject more than form." See also Category talk:Illustrations. --Snek01 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the discussion states that "illustration" is correct, just like in your definition. The other categories would be "sound", "video" and "printed media". The last is ambiguous too. But it was said by a non-native speaker that "image" is just as confusing, if not more. "Drawing" is only partially correct, since "illustrations" contains drawings and paintings (but not video, sound or text). 87.79.83.24613:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Commons is for media files, most of our content is illustrations, so indicating illustrations to the category is not helpful. I bet this category was meant for drawings to separate them from photos, or it was meant for illustrations scanned from books. Create a category with appropriate category name. --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
true in general however the majority of media in the category Trilobita is photographs, with few drawings, illustrations, painting etc. Thus the name of category, which conforms to the naming structure of the parent categories, eg Category:Zoological illustrations.--Kevmin (talk) 18:59, 31 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.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I supposed, category:railway lines is intended for images and files sorted by specific track line and country, while category:rail tracks for images sorted by type of technical element (points, sleepers, technical drawings of rails etc.). However, the meta-subcategory category:rail tracks by country and all its subcategories (and its current content) is mainly duplicite toward category:railway lines by country and splits the content needlessly. Some conceptual treatment is needed. Let's not neglect the distinction between (classical) railways and rail transport tracks generally (including trams, funiculars, rapid and city transport rail systems etc.) too. --ŠJů (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the situation is quite o.k. like this: Detail photos of the track are in the first mentioned category, photos with landscape and/or trains in the second category. I don't think we should change this but it is necessary to regularly come back and sort out badly categorized photos. --Gürbetaler (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we have separately categories of railway lines in global views and separately categories of detail images from railway lines? As I mentioned, detailed images of rail track components should have their own categories: points, sleepers, derails, overhead lines, cog-rails, railway signs and signals etc., by type of device. However, why we need categories category:rail tracks by country and its subcategories in paralell to category:railway lines by country? We can see examples what is (or was) included in the Category:Rail tracks in Switzerland:
I see no reason to divide such photos into two different and paralel categories accidentally. Even if your idea were good, the practical effect is and will be a chaos, duplicity and shattering. We should put them together, no matter if under the first name or under the second one. Eventual category for images of rail elements should be named quite otherwise, to not be confused with images of railway lines (tracks). --ŠJů (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but railway lines and rail tracks are two different things. Rail track is a detail of the physical plant like overhead line, points etc. and I see absolutely no reason to remove this category. Or how would you then call a category where I can find photos that show how track is constructed? Sure it is possible to put some photos in a more detailled category. Rail track is part of "Rail transport infrastructure" while railway lines aren't.--Gürbetaler (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, we have in Czech a term "železniční trať". It can be traslated "rail track" or "railway line" (die Bahnstrecke or die Bahnlinie in German). It means a way for trains. Unfortunately, the category name "Rail tracks in Switzerland" associates this meaning primarily, synonymic to "Railway lines in Switzerland". For the second meaning of the English words "rail track", we have a word "kolej" in Czech (das Gleis in German). I suspect that English language can hardly differentiate this two meanings. We have "dvoukolejná trať" in Czech (or zweigleisige Strecke in German), but no "double-track track" in English - only "double-track" (= Zweistrecke?, dvojtrať?). Track which have two tracks. The English word "track" is ambiguous, compared to other languages. The category name should be unambiguous. (The word "rail" means rather "kolejnice" (Schiene) than "kolej" (Gleis).)
We can have a global view of some track/line (e. g. aerial view), we can have a detailed view (e. g. a commonly photo, ranging tens or hundreds metres or some few kilometres usually), we can have a more detalied view from the line (a point, a platform, a station, a sign along the track, a rail). Both the global and the detailed views belong to the identical and specific track(s)/line(s) allways. We can categorize them into subcategories by station or by section, we can categorize them in parallel by type of device (category of overhead lines, of cog-rails, sleepers etc.), but the category Category:Rail tracks in Switzerland itself is nothing but harmful duplicity of Category:Railway lines in Switzerland. It causes that unsorted photos of railways in Switzerland fall (accidentally) into two different categories, which isn't included one in the second even. Categories "railway lines in..." was always intended for photos of real parts and places of railway infrastructure, not (only) for some abstract and ideal lines. I wrote arguments and I gave examples that category name "Rail tracks in (country)" attracts such images which belong into category "Railway lines" (and its subcategories) primarily. If we should have in "rail tracks" every photo like this (no detailed photo of rails, but global view of railway station), we can place here 80 % of railway photos from Switzerland. What it makes sense? As I said already, an eventual category for images of rail track elements should be named quite otherwise, to not be confused with images of railway lines (tracks). "Rail track elements" would be a suitable name (per samples Architectural elements, Bridge details, Vehicle parts etc.). For images of rail track details, the unambiguous name can be "Details of rail tracks", "Types of rail tracks" etc. If you understand the problem, maybe you will come up with some better solutions. --ŠJů (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What we discuss here is a linguistic problem. Often, people who put photos in categories do not really understand the words. Hence we shouldn't rename categories but try to give useful translations. "Rail tracks" is the perfectly correct name for the category "Gleise" and "Railway lines" translates as "Eisenbahnstrecken". There is even a distinction in German between "Linie" and "Strecke" but unfortunately both translate as "line" in English...
And then, unfortunately, many uploaders do not really care about categorizing and I have corrected hundreds of category entries. Renaming "Rail tracks" doesn't resolve this problem. Unfortunately.--Gürbetaler (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
line = Strecke/Linie
track = Gleis
rail = Schiene
thus:
single track, double track = eingleisig, zweigleisig/doppelspurig
double track line = doppelspurige Strecke
Sure, naming of categories is a linguistic problem. That's why we need to keep from unfitted category names which cause that image files are disorganized. I have made clear that "rail tracks" isn't an unambiguous equivalent of "Gleise" but that this term have a meaning synonymic to "railway lines" too. That's why such categories attract many of images which belongs into category "Railway lines" (and its subcategories) primarily. Btw., as you noted, railway lines is ambiguous too, in English. In some regions, the Strecken-system of passenger transportation is or was changed to Line-system which means that one line (Linie) can use more "Strecken" and one "Strecke" can be used by more "Lines" (Linien). Hundred years ago, such trend changed a tram transport. But this ambiguity causes no serious problem yet, contrary to the previous one. This problem concerns tens of countries, category descriptions aren't able to reduce all disarray caused by unsuitable category names. --ŠJů (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I claim that categories "Railway lines..." are intended for photos of real parts and places of railway infrastructure, not (only) for some abstract and ideal lines. This meaning is practically identical with the definitiion of en:Rail tracks you linked. Hardly some photo displays a railway line but not a rail tracks, hardly som photo displays a rail tracks but not a railway line. Rail tracks are the main visible physical substance (not only an equipment) of every railway line. --ŠJů (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the original proposal to merge the categories. Both are describing the same thing - all the images which are now categorised under "railway lines" also come within "rail track"; if there is a need for a category just showing close-up images of railway infrastructure, then it should be created for the infrastructure in question. There is no need for categories for every country and in fact it is more helpful from a categorisation point of view if each section of rail track (Linie) can be assigned to a particular route (Strecke), rather than being all put together as photos of lines (Gleise). Ravenseft (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you mix up the German terms. Eisenbahnlinie is not a synonym to the English word railway line. In terms of infrastructure we only speak about Eisenbahnstrecke and that would be Category:Railway lines which should be geographically divided. Ãnd the Category:Rail tracks should contain pictures that show details of rail tracks de:Gleis and these can be very different among several countries. If you put them all together in the same global category you will never again find anything. But building up specific sub-categories like Category:Gauntlet track or Category:Rack railway points is a good idea. But somebody would have to sort out several hundreds of pictures and have to find good enough sub-categories to avoid that one category has more than about one hundred pictures. Not an easy task!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, and we need to make sure that only de:Gleis are found in the Rail tracks category. The best way to do that would be to create sub-categories for the different infrastructure. Yes, this will not be an easy task, but it would be best to start now rather than allow more and more non-rail track images be put into this category. We don't need to divide between countries at the beginning and we don't need to sort everything straightaway, this can be done over time. In my categorisations for the UK, I have found not so many images which would come into this category. Ravenseft (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given a category like Category:Midland Main Line, should there be a subcategory Category:Track of the Midland Main Line that includes any photo that shows the actual track? I don't see that it matters whether an image is close-up or not, if it shows a track it seems to be in scope for both the lines and tracks categories. Personally I don't think the two category trees are needed in practice: if you want to find photos of track, it's not hard to find them in the "lines" categories. If it's supposed to be easy to find particular types of track, it would be easier to create a category "Lines using track type X" and add the relevant lines categories to that (or entire country categories, if they all use the same type of track.) ghouston (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmmm, this is tricky. From a linguistic point of view, I agree that "railway lines" and "railway tracks" can refer to different things. "Tracks" mean the actual structures upon which the trains run, while "lines" can either be used as a synonym for "tracks" or to mean entire stretches of tracks. If both categories are to be retained, I would suggest that "Railway tracks" be used for photographs of the structures, while "Railway lines" be used only as a meta category containing sub-categories relating to named rail services from point to point. For example, sub-categories of "Railway lines in Ruritania" could be "Ruritania Main Line" and "Dinetobrivsk–Syldania Line". — Cheers, JackLee–talk–21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for any deletions. It seems, reading through this, that the option that has the most traction is sorting miscategorized files into the correct places, rather than doing away with a category family. Sven ManguardWha?18:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Rename Category:Funicular in Skansen to Category:Skansens Bergbana (47 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. Funicular in Skansen;Skansens Bergbana;r;
or
Rename Category:Funicular in Skansen to Category:Skansen funicular railway (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. Funicular in Skansen;Skansen funicular railway;r;
"Skansens Bergbana" appears to be the actual name of the funicular railway and is the title used for the English, Swedish and Danish Wikipedia articles (other languages don't have interwiki-linked articles). "Skansen funicular railway" would be the English translation of this name, which would be my second preference . --Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now requested it there. I think I've done it right, but the instructions aren't completely clear and I'd appreciate someone else checking I've not broken anything. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I closed & moved the cats per the long-open Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01/Category:London Boroughs, following a naming convention Placename, Borough of London per suggestion in the request, which wasnot opposed by anyone & made sense to me. Once done, I received the below conversation on my talkpage, suggesting that there is opposition after all.
Further to the above, is there any consensus for this? London Boroughs are never referred to as "Islington, London borough of" etc (let alone artificial constructions like "Kensington and Chelsea, Royal borough of London") - and in any case, the capitalisation is incorrect ("London Borough" or "Royal Borough" - never "Royal Borough of London" - are always capitalised). — iridescent20:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deadstar, thank you for closing this Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01/Category:London Boroughs that has been oustanding for such a long time. If there are further problems, a new cfd can be opened. Note that many subcategories in the boroughs have to be changed, for example "buildings in xxx" has to become "buildings in xxx, borough of Londen" with the actual naming (alternatively: "buildings in the Royal Borough of London xxx". --Foroa (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the capitalisation - apologies, I never checked this. I have now renamed them to have a capital B. If there are suggestions as to how to best rename the subcats (see suggestions above) I'd like to hear them & it can be fixed. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent is absolutely right. They are always written in the form I put in Categories for discussion . It is done like this to avoid confusion, because the ‘entity’ XXXX is not the name of the borough but the ‘whole title is’, which is why it was done like that on WP. XXXX might be a subdivision like the name of a town or ward or something quite different. It becomes more obvious when trying to understand something written by someone that ignores this. I have even seen the BBC deliver news reports from the wrong locations at times; even the wrong hospital on one occasion because they didn’t read the full address properly, so these things matter. Doing otherwise will upset people and cause school teachers to turn purple with rage and shake their fists.
Whilst "Hanringey" is obviously a typo it also further demonstrates the importance of preserving the proper titles of these boroughs so as not to confuse borough with town or district, ward, housing estate etc. So it should be in the form and structure of Category:London Borough of Haringey and [[:Category:Harringay]] district of London and so on but certainly not >xxxx, London Borough of<
For the "buildings in xxx" and other ranges of categories etc., this could be more difficult. One thing they have realised on WP is that by letting anyone create a new category regardless of if they know how the classification of the subject is structured, then you can have a confusing mess which spreads over hundreds and hundreds of sub categories and their subs. The only way to sort this out I think would be to write a script containing a list with the first-part of the name for each of the boroughs. Then have conditionals statements to search the string; say something along the lines ‘if ‘Croydon’ then add ‘Borough of London’. Then have it programmed to go through each category in turn, on the whole database. There is a small problem in that a few of these names are also place names in other parts of the world which were parts of the British Empire but these would be easy to sort out afterwards. Image from those places already turn up in the UK cats so this would not be the greater evil. I will have to think about these other cats further and see how big the problem has become on WC. Hopefully its not as advanced as on WP.--P.g.champion (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on the matter is that if people are looking for images of the Borough of Haringey, they will look for Haringey rather than type "London Borough of Haringey". Also when using HotCat/search, when typing in, say, Category:Croydon, with the current naming convention, it will give me all options, so both the town AND the borough. If the naming convention was changed to "London Borough of Croydon", I would not have this option available to me. So although the naming of the cats is not perhaps the official convention, it is the one more helpful for Commons. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with "Southwark, London Borough of" if and only if it were a redirect to "London Borough of Southwark". The major issue to me is that you've unintentionally invented nonexistent names; as P.g.champion says, the name is "London Borough of Southwark", not "Southwark" (which refers to only a small part of the London Borough). Additionally, London is a polycentric city, and the London Boroughs which make up Greater London are none of them part of the City of London itself; plus the boroughs don't follow a consistent naming pattern; as well as the London Boroughs, the boroughs of London also include the City of Westminster and two Royal Boroughs, neither of which are ever listed with "London" in their name. — iridescent16:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can see what is happening here.
Let us go back to basics for a minute.
The idea of having “categories” is to enable someone working for a picture desk editor to locate images.
If they use one of the other picture libraries they may well find the retrieval system is based on tags.
This is good for the picture library as they can employ staff with a lower level of education, because tagging pictures is very easy to do. It also makes it appear as if they are giving the prospective customer lots of choice. Of course, what really happens is that tag system throws up lots of false positives. For the buyer this is bad: because time is money and tagging systems wastes plenty of both; it forcing the user to picking their way between the dross. For the people who have to do this all day it is a pain. This is WC’s strong point, as it uses a more powerful category tree system to organise and retrieve images. It provides the shortest route (or number of clicks) between the macro and the micro, to where the right image may be be found. I.e.
Continental location: Europe
Union: United Kingdom
Country:England
Major conurbation: London
Subdivision: London Borough
Subdivision: District
Putting the name of the admin town in front is to forgo some of the advantages of this category system, whilst adding some of the disadvantages one get with tags. If this mixing of the accepted nomenclatures with ‘key word’ ordering was carried out across WC and the other projects without good cause, it would get more messy than it is now. If one is looking for a London borough, one expects to see ‘London’ first. Whoever originally started the London categories, must have been more familiar with different database systems and grossly unfamiliar with the geography. This is what prompted the the need to correct these London categories in the first place. >XXXX, London Borough of< is still unfortunately, too much of an alien formate and just does not make sense to have WC inventing its own naming conventions, that not only looks awkward and amateurish, but users still will not understand. Lastly, Hotcats still throws up suggestions on WP which has London Borough the right way round, although you might have to prompt it a second time to find the right one. This I think, is hardly a major inconvenience nor a reason to start changing the way categories are formatted. I apologies if I have gone on at length but many years ago (before Microsoft windows was about) I had to use some very large data bases and this brings back those nightmares.--P.g.champion (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, in all but four cases the name of the subdivisions of Greater London is "London Borough of X". The four exceptions are "Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea", "Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames", "City of Westminster" and "City of London" (the latter of which is a sui generis local authority and not a London borough). Iff the form "X, [B|b]orough of London" is helpful for things like hotcat then it is acceptable for them to exist as redirects to the properly named categories. Having the content in categories named like this is incorrect and unprofessional. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creating all the boroughs with their "short" name that conflict in most of the cases with other locations, was incorrect and unprofessional to start with. We are trying to correct that in the first place. --Foroa (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so to close this now before it sits here for another year: the request will be put in per below (please update any typos etc!), I'll wait for someone else to agree with it here before I put it in. And then redirect from the way they're currently named so they can be used in the search etc. From what I gather, redirects are cheap anyway. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Bexley, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Bexley (2,031 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. Bexley, Borough of London;London Borough of Bexley;r;
Rename Category:Barnet, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Barnet (4,290 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. Barnet, Borough of London;London Borough of Barnet;r;
Rename Category:Brent, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Brent (3,138 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. Brent, Borough of London;London Borough of Brent;r;
Rename Category:Camden, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Camden (3,630 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. Camden, Borough of London;London Borough of Camden;r;
Rename Category:Croydon, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Croydon (3,932 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. Croydon, Borough of London;London Borough of Croydon;r;
Rename Category:Ealing, Borough of London (talk) to Category:London Borough of Ealing (3,173 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. Ealing, Borough of London;London Borough of Ealing;r;
Rename Category:Enfield, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Enfield (4,154 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. Enfield, Borough of London;London Borough of Enfield;r;
Rename Category:Greenwich, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Greenwich (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. Greenwich, Borough of London;London Borough of Greenwich;r;
Rename Category:Hackney, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Hackney (2,999 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. Hackney, Borough of London;London Borough of Hackney;r;
Rename Category:Haringey, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Haringey (1,785 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. Haringey, Borough of London;London Borough of Haringey;r;
Rename Category:Harrow, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Harrow (1,478 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. Harrow, Borough of London;London Borough of Harrow;r;
Rename Category:Hillingdon, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Hillingdon (3,666 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. Hillingdon, Borough of London;London Borough of Hillingdon;r;
Rename Category:Hounslow, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Hounslow (1,847 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. Hounslow, Borough of London;London Borough of Hounslow;r;
Rename Category:Islington, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Islington (2,766 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. Islington, Borough of London;London Borough of Islington;r;
Rename Category:Kingston upon Thames, Royal Borough to Category:Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (1,228 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. Kingston upon Thames, Royal Borough;Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames;r;
Rename Category:Lambeth, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Lambeth (3,993 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. Lambeth, Borough of London;London Borough of Lambeth;r;
Rename Category:Lewisham, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Lewisham (1,904 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. Lewisham, Borough of London;London Borough of Lewisham;r;
Rename Category:Merton, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Merton (1,305 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. Merton, Borough of London;London Borough of Merton;r;
Rename Category:Newham, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Newham (3,756 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. Newham, Borough of London;London Borough of Newham;r;
Rename Category:Redbridge, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Redbridge (1,434 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. Redbridge, Borough of London;London Borough of Redbridge;r;
Rename Category:Sutton, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Sutton (1,353 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. Sutton, Borough of London;London Borough of Sutton;r;
Rename Category:Southwark, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Southwark (5,063 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. Southwark, Borough of London;London Borough of Southwark;r;
Rename Category:Tower Hamlets, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Tower Hamlets (5,045 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. Tower Hamlets, Borough of London;London Borough of Tower Hamlets;r;
Rename Category:Waltham Forest, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Waltham Forest (1,913 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. Waltham Forest, Borough of London;London Borough of Waltham Forest;r;
Rename Category:Wandsworth, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Wandsworth (1,904 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. Wandsworth, Borough of London;London Borough of Wandsworth;r;
Rename Category:Havering, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Havering (1,909 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. Havering, Borough of London;London Borough of Havering;r;
Comment I'm processing the above request, converting the existing categories to redirect. It will take some time, mediawiki seems to have some problems. To avoid the inconvenience of the previous solution, this is done a week early, but it appears to be the version that gained the most support in the earlier discussion and the one people agree on today. -- User:Docu at 14:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know if anyone had checked it through for typos yet? However, if it is OK now, then that is fine. The correct spelling of Harringay caused problems before but that one has come out fine this time. If it hasn't been checked, I can do it tonight or tomorrow. --P.g.champion (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Smilacina japonica (talk) to Category:Maianthemum japonicum (14 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. Smilacina japonica;Maianthemum japonicum;r;
As mentioned in the last request, Smilacina has for some time been merged into Maianthemum and this category should be renamed Maianthemum japonicum. See LaFrankie, J. V. 1986. Transfer of the species of Smilacina Desf. to Maianthemum Wiggers (Liliaceae). Taxon 35: 584–589. --Choess (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, though, as anyone can see from looking at the contents of these categories, they've become hopelessly tangled. There is very little correlation between the intent and what is actually located in which category. Here is my proposal to untangle them:
Judging by supercategories, this was meant for a river in Italy, but judging by contents, in practice it has just been a place for Italian speakers to categorize images that should be under one or another subcategory of Category:Churches. Proposal: move current content to Category:Churches (or more specific subcategories) and rename this Category:Chiese River. --Jmabel ! talk00:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I see! I also found Category:Chiese (river), which has all the images for this river. Perhaps just deleting this cat is enough. Working on emptying it, but it seems to be a bot that is adding this cat to images more than people - deleting it is vital for this to not happen again. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About one third was already in Category:Churches in Italy or one of its subcategories. I had my bot remove them and re-categorized the remaining ones. I added a redirect, but I'm not too sure about that one .. -- User:Docu at 04:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC), 04:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So the only question remaining on this request is whether Category:Chiese should redirect - I think it should be deleted so as to not confuse as not all churches that were in the cat were in Italy to start with. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Category:Bridal couples was recently moved to Category:Wedded couples. If there was any discussion, I must have missed it. Up until the point where the wedding ceremony has been performed, the couple is a "bridal couple" or even a "wedding couple", but not a "wedded couple". Since many of these photos will be from before the ceremony, I believe the new name is wrong.
The deletion remark said that "bridal couple" is not idiomatic English. As a native speaker of English, I beg to differ, but would have no problem with "wedding couple" (even though it strikes me as less idiomatic than "bridal couple". FWIW, "bridal couple" gets 688,000 Google hits. - Jmabel ! talk01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully. Wedded couple is a very odd expression, to me. Thus inappropriate as a category name. Also for the reason given above. In 59 years of speaking English as my first language, I've heard of a married couple, never once of a wedded one. SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too am a native English speaker, and "Bridal couples" is the phrase that immediately makes most sense to me. "Wedded couple" on the other hand strikes me as very odd phrasing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am moving the images that are not etchings to their own new categories by type of printing. This one can be left, although it will have no images as yet. Ecphora (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Category:Paris, Texas is useful and properly categorized, as it a city in Texas for which we have in scope media. Being named after something does not make it part of the namesake, so Paris Texas should no more be a subcategory of Category:Paris than New York should be a subcategory of York, nor Louisiana a subcategory of Louis XIV of France. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that "Category:Law offices" be merged into "Category:Law firms". The existence of both categories is, in my view, confusing and unnecessary. An editor added a usage note to "Law offices" stating that images of "Offices (the physical space) of lawyers, barristers, solicitors, and other legal professionals" should be placed in that category, but such images could easily be put into "Law firms" as well.
What is likely to happen is that photographs relating to a particular law firm will be put in a subcategory (say, "Category:Doe & Roe"). Since the images will be a mixture of photographs of the office(s) in which the law firm operates, the firm's logo and the lawyers employed by the firm, it will be necessary to make "Category:Doe & Roe" a subcategory of both "Law firms" and "Law offices". In that case, we might as well just ask editors to put all such subcategories into one main category such as "Law firms". The alternative is to create separate subcategories called "Category:Law offices of Doe & Roe" (for images of Doe & Roe's offices, to be put into "Law offices") and "Category:Doe & Roe" (for other images relating to Doe & Roe, to be put into "Law firms"), which seems rather pointless since there probably won't be a huge number of photographs in each subcategory. Also, "Category:Law offices of Doe & Roe" will presumably have to be a subcategory of "Category:Doe & Roe", which means that it will end up being a sub-subcategory of "Law firms".
If the above proposal is accepted, I think the following subcategories will also require renaming:
Oppose. Desiring to deal with fewer categories is not a reason to sacrifice accuracy. Law office is to law firm as factory is to manufacturing company. It clearly makes sense to categorize physical places and companies separately, and the nom has not in any way explained why it's a problem to do so. Even if the only contents of law firm subcategories are images of company logos, lawyers, and offices, we will still also categories those images as such as well as by their association with the law firm.
Perhaps most importantly, the nom's description of the contents of these categories is not accurate. As can clearly be seen from the current contents of the categories (and as is obvious from some knowledge of the legal profession), not all law offices pertain to law firms. Many will be the offices of individual practitioners that can hardly be characterized as firms, and many are historic offices maintained as landmarks. Would you really categorize the images in Category:James Monroe Law office or Category:John W. Woodson law office as a "law firm"?
In fact, we can expect more images of the offices of individual practitioners than we can those of law firms. Law firms will typically operate out of floors in office buildings or skyscrapers to which the public does not have access, and which externally depict nothing of their contents, so there will be few pictures of actual law firm offices. Instead, the law firm offices that the public will be able to take pictures of most frequently will be the proverbial "shingle" hung out—the small offices of solo practitioners. (Full disclosure: I created the category just to fix the pluralization of Category:Law office, which another contributor started. I've also worked at three law firms.) Postdlf (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At first I was just going to comment with some questions, but after looking at some of the images and subcategories, I think keeping seperate categories would be best. I note that there are images such as File:Maison des avocats -1.JPG which are law offices but not law firms, and others like File:LeathesPriorSolicitorsLogoBlue.JPG which are law firms but not law offices. It looks to me like the problem gets even worse with subcategories. I notice we already have some country categories like Category:Law offices in the United States. As categories become more populated the tendancy is to break them down further geographically. But there are many big law firms that have offices in multiple cities, states, and countries. For example a branch office of a law firm based in New York City might be located in South Carolina. If categorized by firm it would go in the New York subcat, and if by office in the South Carolina subcat. Having seperate categories for firms and offices may be a bit messy, but the alternative seems to me even messier. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed — I don't see any reason that "Law firms of the United States" and "Law firms of Northern Ireland" should not be moved; virtually every geography-based category is "___ in ___". However, as noted by others already, it's good to have different categories for the companies and for the buildings themselves. We can easily add a notice to the categories that images of the buildings themselves should go into Offices, while other images should go into Firms. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the interesting comments. A few observations:
If "Category:Law firms" and "Category:Law offices" are retained, it will be necessary to define their scope carefully in usage notes. For the reasons suggested above, I think it is acceptable to use "Law offices" for the physical buildings or offices occupied by lawyers and "Law firms" for law practices.
I a little troubled by Postdlf's suggestion the category "Law firms" is unsuitable for sole practitioners. The Commons is used by a worldwide audience, and I believe that to many people law firm includes all law practices, including those run by sole practitioners. I used to work as a lawyer in Singapore and that is how the term is used there. If the term is ambiguous, then perhaps we need to find a term that covers both law firms and sole practitioners – "Category:Law practices"? Or should there be a separate category for sole practitioners?
As Infrogmation has pointed out, there are large international law firms that have offices in many cities around the world. I guess that means we need to have categories such as "Category:Law firms in Brasilia" and "Category:Law firms in Singapore" for images of those international offices. However, do we also need to have categories for the head offices of such firms such as "Category:Law firms of Singapore"? In other words, images of the head office of the firm of Doe & Roe which originated in New York would be placed in "Category:Law firms of New York", and images of the firm's offices in Singapore would be placed in "Category:Law firms in Singapore".
If "firm" doesn't just mean company in British English (which I find surprising), what do you call a company of lawyers practicing law, in contrast to just one lawyer conducting the practice of law? Though maybe as pluralized "law practices" won't be ambiguous on that point? Postdlf (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you – according to the OED, firm can mean "[t]he 'style' or name under which the business of a commercial house is transacted" and "[a] partnership of two or more persons for carrying on a business; a commercial house". However, the fact is that the term law firm is sometimes used (perhaps loosely) to refer to all kinds of law practices, including sole practitioners. Indeed, in Singapore it is not uncommon to find sole practitioners practising under a name such as "Doe & Co" or "Roe & Partners" even though there are no other partners. Perhaps it is best to rename "Category:Law firms" as "Category:Law practices". I don't think it is a good idea to put images of sole practitioners' practices in "Category:Law offices" if we are using that category for images of buildings and offices, as that may be confusing. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–17:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confused on your last sentence: why not? If a sole practitioner's practice has a specific building, isn't that his office as much as it would be if he had a partner? Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't a distinction be made between a sole practitioner's business and his or her place of work, in the same way that some editors are drawing a distinction between "law firms" and "law offices"? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say yes on the surface level of your question, but I don't understand your point: how does it matter (for the purpose of categorisation) how many lawyers work in an office? Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A solo practitioner's business is, by definition, one lawyer (and maybe some support staff, but I doubt we'd have images of those). So yes, we would categorize a picture of a lawyer differently than we would a picture of the office where that lawyer works. Postdlf (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering if we have consensus on the following:
Retaining "Category:Law offices" for the buildings and offices occupied by lawyers.
Creating subcategories in the format "Category:Law offices in the United States" for offices that are located in the named city or country, whether or not they originated from there (i.e., including branches of international firms).
Comment: I am suggesting either "law practices of ..." or "law practices from ...", not both. I'm not sure which one is more appropriate. Or are you suggesting that perhaps we do not need such subcategories? I have a feeling that we will. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–07:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have consensus to retain Category:Law offices, and individual images of offices should be categorized by where they are physically located.
As for the rest, that's outside the scope of this CFD. But regardless, I'm not understanding why you want to categorize solo practitioners together with law firms (companies employing multiple lawyers). Why wouldn't images of solo practitioners just be categorized as "lawyers"? Particularly since I thought your intent to change the name "firm" was because you consider it ambiguous as to whether it referred to companies only. I'm not convinced on that (that Singaporean solo practitioners commonly misrepresent themselves as constituting a firm of lawyers rather than one is interesting, but beside the point), and I don't think a change to "practices" adds any clarity or focus. Postdlf (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the usage of law firm to include the law practices of sole practitioners is a Singaporean quirk. I have a feeling that it is accepted throughout the common-law world, even if it is not commonplace in the United States. With the usual caveat that self-references should not be made to Wikipedia, I note that the article "law firm" states: "A law firm is a business entity formed by one or more lawyers to engage in the practice of law. ... Law firms are organized in a variety of ways, depending on the jurisdiction in which the firm practices. Common arrangements include: ... Sole proprietorship, in which the attorney is the law firm and is responsible for all profit, loss and liability ... Law firms range widely in size. The smallest law firms are sole practitioners (lawyers practicing alone), who form the vast majority of lawyers in nearly all countries." [Emphasis added.] I think the implication to be drawn is that to many editors and readers the terms law firm and law practice include sole practitioners, and they would be surprised to find sole practitioners' practices under "Category:Lawyers" and larger practices under the separate category "Category:Law firms". My suggestion for renaming the latter to "Category:Law practices" was to find a term that would embrace both sole practitioners and larger practices. Perhaps the US is the outlier here. If this isn't the right place to discuss this issue, should I start a separate CfD for "Category:Law firms"? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD obviously can't alter the law firm categories that aren't tagged with CFD notices. And I think it would just be confusing to belatedly expand this CFD to rename those categories as well, so starting a separate one would be best if you really want to do that.
But on the merits of that renaming issue, I would oppose it, and I don't expect there to be consensus for it. I haven't seen anyone yet but you argue that "law firms" would also include solo practitioners (or that it should), and I don't see that understanding reflected in practice either, based on the images found in Category:Law firms or its subcategories (nor in the articles in Category:Law firms in the English Wikipedia). And if the point in changing the name to "law practices" would be to expressly invite the inclusion of solo practitioners, I would oppose it. There is no benefit to categorizing lawyers who are solo practitioners with companies of multiple lawyers, which are substantively different. The Law Practice of Joe Schmoe, Esq. is still just Joe Schmoe, even if he does business as a professional corporation. As a solo practitioner, images of his "practice" are just images of him. When Schmoe retires, the "firm" retires with him; it has no independent existence. Schmoe, consequently, should just be categorized as a lawyer, not as a law firm or law practice. But Arnold & Porter, for example, exists independently of any particular lawyer. That firm's namesakes, Arnold and Porter, have both been dead for over 30 years. Yet Arnold & Porter as a firm still exists, and even a complete changeover in its personnel would not cause it to cease to exist. So I see no benefit in changing any of these existing categories; certainly not to loosen their definitions. Postdlf (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I guess there may be a fundamental difference in different parts of the world between how the term law firm is understood. Since you are of the view that it is not a good idea to find a neutral term that would cover both law firms and sole practitioners (though, as I have pointed out, a good number of people in the world probably treat them as a group), there would be little point for me to initiate a separate discussion about "Category:Law firms". Let's just ensure that there are clear usage notes at "Category:Law firms" and "Category:Lawyers". — Cheers, JackLee–talk–12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following from the above discussion, I believe we have consensus for retaining "Category:Law offices" for the buildings and offices occupied by lawyers.
Since there was no action on here for a long time, and no consensus to delete or merge/move, I have removed the original tags on the categories. If there is anything to "officially" close this discussion, please do so. Ingolfson (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for discussion request --Nilfanion (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I just removed {{OverPopCat}} from this category. As I understand it the entire purpose of the category is to monitor RC on pages, so diffusion is self-defeating. Commons is different from Wikipedia - as we don't have biographies - but we can still get libellous comments here. That suggests that all files, categories and galleries relating to living people should be included in some manner. That is clearly not the case at present (Andre Agassi and File:Agassi-Auopen2005.jpg) are examples.[reply]
I can think of a few questions here:
Do we even need this category on Commons?
If we do, which of the 3 content namespaces (file, gallery, category) do we need to include?
Obviously we should get some sort of consensus before acting, as it is vastly underpopulated compared to the comparable categories on the Wikipedias and will take a lot of time and effort to populate. (Moved from AN at request of Docu)--Nilfanion (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to your three questions above:
(1). It might be useful, but I think People by alphabet is more important for Commons.
(2). I think it should be limited to categories (possibly galleries, if there is no category named after the individual)
(3). An easy way to maintain it, would be to requestEuseBot to sync it with en.wp. This would make it fairly low maintenance.
As a content category, agree with you, and the by alphabet cat does that role better for the most part. That said the by alphabet doesn't make a distinction between living and dead people so there is a difference. The thing is on en.wp the whole point of this category is as a maintenance category not a content one. I'm not sure if we need it in that role here and that's the big question to my mind. Personally, I'm not sure about its utility here - and it needs work whichever way we go (to clean it up or add a load of stuff to it)--Nilfanion (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the workflow is for the corresponding category at the English Wikipedia, but I think in order to make use of it, one would need bots to monitor (a) when content is added to or removed from the category and (b) when content in the category is otherwise changed, with this monitoring resulting in a summary of changes requiring review by trusted human users. Considering we don't have cascading watchlisting, I don't see how the category would otherwise aid in giving living people priority in reviewing edits. Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of the category?
One question I'd like to raise is whether we want to include files featuring non-notable living people (such as photos featuring identifiable but unnamed passers-by in a street scene). —LX (talk, contribs)19:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response the the first point, the reason for the set up on en.wp is that w:Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living people functions as a watchlist. I believe (but am not sure) that there are IRC bots that monitor that feed. It might be worth coordination with en on this - as it would give us a much larger pool of people to monitor BLP issues (and problems here will show through on WP).
It would probably be worth monitoring every identifiable image like you raised. If you have a picture of an identifiable non-notable person on a street corner and someone changes the caption to say "prostitute", that's a problem. The en.wp BLP policy is inherently about identified people as opposed to identifiable, but due to our different scope perhaps we should monitor anything that is eligible for {{Personality rights}} tagging.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Comment for those people who work mainly on Commons, and may not know, the foundation has written about what they expect projects to do with regard to matters that deal with living people, and there's also this on Meta. Just wanted to provide those links. As far as the discussion about the category here, I don't know what we should do, but some action should be taken. It's far too unorganized. Killiondude (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a very big user of Commons, so bringing in my "outside perspective", what I have to say is that this is a category which is completely useless: There are far too many "living people" for anyone to start searching for media in this category, and for the very reason that this category has such a general scope, I think many people, who like me, frequently use Commons, but do not work much on Commons, would never've imagined that such a category could exist. I see the point about BLP, but the point that this category is so very general, I doubt many people will think of adding it when uploading pictures to common, preferring more narrow categories. I think the same thing for Category:Dead people: As a category for post mortem pictures, it does have a purpose, but as a category for pictures of people who were alive at the time the photo was taken, but who have since died, it is of very little use to someone looking for media. V85 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of this category is as a maintenance category, in that sense its analogous to Category:GFDL. I'd expect no one would ever seriously use it for content purposes (and I agree people won't think to add it). That said, if we decide to make use of it we can use bots to keep it populated.--Nilfanion (talk)
Comment The Latuff debate has become an issue again. This image is problematic, so is a page that should be tracked. I'm not sure if personality rights tagging is a good idea with that image actually - but certainly we should make more of an effort to get rights tagging done.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other day, I cleaned up this category as it was related to the POTD. The only images that didn't readily fit into subcategories were caricatures and carnival images. Probably these should go into another standard subcategory. It does look odd to leave them in the main category. In general, file description pages of caricatures might need a specialized tag. Briefly explaining what it is, which countries may have a tradition in that field, in which countries it may be prohibited, which liberties may authorize it, etc. -- User:Docu at 05:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or remove the images and keep the categories/galleries in it. What a useless category. It's impossible to track every image of every living person here (not to mention maintain it - think about it). Bots can help but bots the reason we're in this mess in the first place. No ones maintaining it, no one will (and yes I've seen the bot trying to but actually making it worse, like applying it to things that aren't even people since on the language-specific Wikipedia, the name happens to be a living person). Even if we could track every image of every living person, I seriously doubt anyone's going to use it. The sheer amount of changes wouldn't be much better than trying to have people constantly watch the RC. I don't even think anyone wanted this, categorizing bots just started adding categories like this because they grabbed them from Wikipedia (where it may have a practical use). All this does is create more work. Rocket000 (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once the search results in MediaWiki could be limited by categories Category:Living people would become really important for searching. Regarding the maintenance of the categories — I think that only few categories on Commons are really regularly inspected and maintained by someone. --Pabouk (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
---
Closing stale discussion. Docu at00:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I disagree. A "protest" can be a hunger strike by a single person, or scaling a nuclear power station cooling tower by a few Greenpeace activists. Calling these "demonstrations" would seem to be very wrong to me - demonstrations are group/crowd acts. Ingolfson (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading name. The files aren't solely reviewed by admins, but by other users as well. I'd propose to rename the category to "Reviewed Flickr images", which is more accurate. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Admin" is in clearly appropriate, however I think the human nature of the reviewer should be stated, either "trusted user" or "human" would work. That's simply to be consistent with the FlickreviewR and Flickr upload bot cats. Also should change "images" to "files".--Nilfanion (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not a huge issue, but fair technical point. i'd support a name change (as long as i don't have to do any of the work ;P). "trusted user" would probably be the best choice of keywords.
but what about putting "flickr" first? using the right word-order makes it much easier to search/find the right category (or etc.) with the extremely limited search/sort capabilities of media-wiki & especially the "fill-in-the-rest" feature of both mediawiki search & hotcat.js. i know naming conventions are a mess, but i've been trying to figure out the best schema, using the tools we have. placing the primary identifier-word foremost is useful, in terms of improved functionality. you can actually find what you're looking for!
(& we already have "Flicker" as the header for a number of other, related cats... )
So are you suggesting Category:Flikr images reviewed by trusted users? That would put the primary word first, but it's also not clear that the images that have been reviewed are hosted here but sourced from Flikr rahter than being images hosted on Flikr. I'm can't, off the top of my head, think of a phrasing that removes this ambiguity while retaining the word Flikr first. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for the category name that WhiteWriter and Sreejithk support; I'd prefer Courcelles' solution, but both are better than the current name. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This category is probably a level to deep. I already notice most mills in the openair museum in arnhem are already in the Category:Windmills in Gelderland category. The category don't contain a lot of pictures. So I want to propose to just merge this category with that one. --Akoopal (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree I don't see the problem, the cat fits in perfectly within "buildings in Arnhem", and there are undoubtedly more windmills in Arnhem that have not been properly classified. ("not a lot of pictures" isn't a reason to delete a category anyway). -- Deadstar (msg) 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NB The windmills in Arnhem that are in the Open Air museum should (according to logic) thus be moved to "Windmills in Arnhem", or (if there are many) have a seperate subsection? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are working from the 'Arnhem' perspective, I am working from the 'Windmills' perspective. If you divide all the mills over the different categories it makes then harder to find if you don't know the exact town a mill is in. There are 9 windmills in Arnhem ciy from which 8 are in the open airmuseum and there is one in Elden, which is in the municiple. I plan to start making a category for every mill as that gives you consistent naming, so you would end up with about 10 subcategories. Akoopal (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I think those subcategories would work really well under the "Windmills in Arnhem" category. With one click you can expand the tree to show you all the names of the mills within Arnhem etc. anyway. And I guess if I knew the name of a mill but not where it was, the search would come up with it regardless of in what category it sits. Maybe it would be good to sort all the "Windmills in city" categories to the top of the "Windmills in Gelderland" cat so they are easier to find? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am always a hesitant for solutions where you allow for overcategorisation for a certain case. I am always afraid a purist will pass by and cleanup again so you either keep fighting a battle, or that the solution is not complete, some categories are in both, others are not. From the mill perspective I still prefer one list, but I can see the standpoint from the place categories. Akoopal (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to get a number of categories renamed so that they are more consistent in name format with others in the same subject groups. This desire of mine pertains especially to several of the subcategories listed under those of the kings and queens and princes and princesses of Sweden where the inconsistencies are confusing and disturbing. Is this a hard thing to do? Can I post a proposed list here, or send it to someone (administrator?) by email, of how this would look if we can do it? I need help with this idea... Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
(Transferred from Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/11/Category:Michigan State University alumni--Diwas (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry about the delay with this. Here is a suggested list, only for the existing subcategories to "Monarchs of Sweden" to begin with. Category names in italics would be unchanged in this system. Comments are also in italics.
Adolph Frederick (Swedish king) – most common English exonyms
Albert (Swedish king) – main claim to fame
Anwynd James of Sweden (Anund Jakob)
Birger (Swedish king)
Canute I of Sweden (Knut Eriksson)
Canute II of Sweden (Knut Långe)
Carl I of Sweden (Karl Sverkersson)
Carl II of Sweden (Karl Knutsson) – Charles obsolete English for Swedish royalty since 1973
Carl IX of Sweden
Carl X Gustav of Sweden
Carl XI of Sweden
Carl XII of Sweden
Carl XIII (Swedish and Norwegian king)
Carl XIV John (Swedish and Norwegian king)
Carl XV (Swedish and Norwegian king)
Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden
Christian I (Scandinavian king) - Scandinavian = of Denmark, Norway and Sweden
Christian II (Scandinavian king)
Christina (Swedish queen regnant)
Christopher III (Scandinavian king)
Eric (V) the Victorious (Swedish king)
Eric (VIII) Goodyear (Swedish legendary king)
Eric (IX) of Sweden (Erik den Helige)
Eric (X) of Sweden (Erik Knutsson)
Eric (XI) of Sweden (Erik Eriksson)
Eric (XII) of Sweden (Erik Magnusson)
Eric of Pomerania (Scandinavian king)
Eric XIV of Sweden
Frederick (Swedish king)
Gustav I of Sweden
Gustav II Adolph of Sweden – most common English exonym
Gustav III of Sweden
Gustav IV Adolph of Sweden – English exonyms
Gustaf V of Sweden – legal spelling since 1900
Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden
Hacon Red of Sweden (Håkan Röde)
Hacon VI (Swedish and Norwegian king)
Ingi the Elder of Sweden (Inge Stenkilsson)
Ingi the Younger of Sweden (Inge Hallstensson)
Ingiburga (Ingeborg Håkansdotter)
John (Scandinavian king)
John III of Sweden
Magnus I of Sweden (Magnus Nilsson)
Magnus II of Sweden (Magnus Henriksson)
Magnus III of Sweden (Magnus Ladulås)
Magnus IV (Swedish and Norwegian king)
Margaret (Scandinavian queen regnant)
Olaf Scotking of Sweden (Olov Skötkonung)
Oscar I (Swedish and Norwegian king)
Oscar II (Swedish and Norwegian king)
Regents of Sweden
Sigmund III (Polish and Swedish king) – English exonym for Polish Zygmunt
Sweartgar I of Sweden (Sverker)
Ulrica Eleanor (Swedish queen regnant) – English exonyms
"One who professes or treats of law; one versed in the science of law; a legal writer".
"In the Universities: A student of law, or one who takes a degree in law".
Given the potential for the term to be misunderstood, I propose that "Category:Jurists" be merged into "Category:Legal scholars". It appears that most of the content of "Category:Jurists" relates to legal scholars. In any case, we should not have both "Category:Jurists" and "Category:Legal scholars".
Content relating to lawyers should be placed in "Category:Lawyers" and to judges in "Category:Judges". It should not be put into "Category:Jurists".
If the proposal is accepted, the following subcategories will also require renaming:
Agreed. In the US, I see "jurist" in headlines and in articles or speeches with a bunch of other "75-cent words." I also suggest that some descriptive statement be placed at the beginning of each of the categories. Estillbham (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the English Wikipedia, we use jurist categories just as a general parent category for all legal professions, grouping together specific subcategories for lawyers, judges, legal scholars and professors, and legal writers. Why shouldn't that be done here as well? It certainly isn't synonymous with just "legal scholar," so if these categories need cleaning up, renaming it in that manner is not the solution. Postdlf (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I guess that's possible. However, it seems a bit unnecessary to have an overarching category called "Category:Jurists" with "Category:Judges", "Category:Lawyers" and "Category:Legal scholars" as subcategories of it, as these three can simply be subcategories of "Category:Law" (which is the case now). I appreciate that "legal scholar" is only one of the possible meanings of jurist. However, at present it seems that most editors seem to be treating the two terms as synonymous, and this is undesirable as there shouldn't be two categories covering the same subject matter. I feel the most appropriate solution is just to delete "Category:Jurists" because of its ambiguity and distribute its contents among "Category:Judges", "Category:Lawyers" and "Category:Legal scholars", as appropriate. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–19:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see some further discussion on whether it's helpful as a grouping category. And I suspect it might be the best term for some historical/ancient figures that are known as codifiers or law-givers (or "legal philosophers"), but who weren't legal scholars or judges per se. Postdlf (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Behalten: Juristen sind alle, die eine grundständige juristische Ausbildung erhalten haben (in Deutschland z.B. mindestens Referendarexamen). Diese Kategorie kann man dann nach Tätigkeitsbereich (Rechtsanwalt, Notar, Staatsanwalt, Wirtschaftjurist, Verwaltungsjurist, Rechtswissenschaftler etc.) untergliedern. --Mogelzahn (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm seeing several proposed outcomes for this discussion:
I don't speak German – what was Mogelzahn's reason for voting "keep"? If we set aside Mogelzahn's comment for now, as of November 2009 there appeared to be consensus (though only involving Postdlf and myself) that "Jurists" should be retained only for ancient people recognized as legal philosophers, or codifiers of law or lawgivers. Other people sometimes referred to as "jurists" should be categorized under "Lawyers", "Legal scholars" or "Judges". — Cheers, JackLee–talk–21:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate: "Keep: lawyers are those who have received an undergraduate legal education (in Germany, for example, at least state examination). This category can then be broken down by sector of activity (lawyer, notary, attorney, business lawyer, jurist, legal scholar, etc.)." --Mogelzahn
We need input from a German speaker as to the meaning of "jurist" in Germany and perhaps other civil law jurisdictions. Right now, it's not clear to me. Note that, per policy, category names are supposed to be in English, so if the term jurist has a special meaning in some jurisdictions, it may be better to have a specially named category like "Jurists (German lawyers)" for clarity. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–06:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if the translations of Mogelzahn's comment are accurate, then his vote amounts to proposing that "Jurists" remain as an overarching parent category, with subcategories like "Lawyers", "Legal scholars" and "Judges". I guess I have no strong objection to that (though it still seems rather unnecessary). There should be a usage note in the "Jurists" main category as well as a {{Categorise}} tag, to urge editors to put files into the subcategories as much as possible rather than just to dump them into "Jurists". Also, some rearrangement of subcategories will be required: for instance, "Lawyers from Germany", "Legal scholars from Germany" and "Judges from Germany" will have to be made subcategories of "Jurists from Germany". — Cheers, JackLee–talk–11:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may say something, „Juristen“ in German means „Lawyers“ too. „Jurists“ may have a slightly different meaning, this word comes from Latin and refers to either legal scholar or already-trained lawyer. In Czech republic we use mainly „Laweyr“ („právník“ in Czech; because „Law“ = „právo“) and that is everybody, who is trained in law and use it in his career. Like judge, attorney, state prosecutor, notary etc. Old word „Jurist“ („jurista“ in Czech) is not used often, most often in the importance of student of law. So, there is a problem with two categories: Category:Jurists from the Czech Republic and Category:Lawyers from the Czech Republic. Both of them contains the same, lawyers. --Vlout (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this change, but not for the reason stated above. If you compare the various Medals of Honor, you will find that there IS a family resemblance between the NASA medal and the Army, Navy, and Air Force medals, and the USAIOH was responsible for maintaining this family resemblence. I kept the name that the person who posted the image used to avoid confusion. for anyone's information, here is the NASA Page that discusses this: Congressional Space Medal of Honor. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for discussion request --Kenmayer (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This category should be renamed Zero (river). Items about the number zero should be categorized in Category:0 (number).[reply]
Yes, but that's an article, which is like a gallery in Commons. Articles can be redirected (try, for instance en:Jose Lopez Portillo), but Categories can't, and they should be named in English. For that reason, my guess was that a Category should not be named using diacritical marks, but I would like to hear from someone with more experience with this policy. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are a bit confused on the matter. Check out Help:Category#People ("Some notable people may have so much content depicting them, or names that are so well known, that it may be worth creating a category or gallery using their name, such as Category:Albert Einstein.[...] Use the common English-language spelling and word order for the category or gallery name; it's a pity to force this on all the world's names, but as noted elsewhere, we use English-language categories on Commons to work around a software limitation."). - Esteban Zissou (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you highlight means mainly that you should use Hu Jintao as category name and not "胡锦涛" or "Jintao Hu", that's all. The part about "gallery name" shouldn't be in there. (Obviously, you don't have to attempt to translate it to "Joseph Wolfson Smallport" either) -- User:Docu at 20:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You get a point that it is not defined what character sets and diacritical marks are supported on Commons (and on the majority of PCs worldwide). When looking on the en:wikipedia evolutions of the last years, it seems impossible to live without diacritical marks, lest call it an extension of English ;). But are for example the Vietnamese diacritical marks supported ? In this case, it does not seem to be a problem, the problem is more on the side of the definition of the Common rules. --Foroa (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sure. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I would like to see a rule about diacritics written in the Category naming section of the documentation. As it is, there's a lot of room left for interpretation and that's making a mess in some categories. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalization of "Wako Department Store" implies that this is an official name. It is not. Further, the store is only tenuously a department store.
The photographs show what is by a wide margin the biggest and best known store -- if you like ad copy English, the "flagship store" -- of what simply calls itself in English "Wako". The category should thus be renamed something like "Wako store (Ginza)", "Wako (Ginza)", or "Wako (store in Ginza)". (I'm unfamiliar with naming on Commons and don't presume to know what's best.)
The article on en: wiki now reads "Wako (retailer)", and mentions that the best known store is called "Ginza Wako". The category could be renamed thus. I will put in the request with Delinker. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
By default all categories are sorted "by alphabet" i. e. "by name". Generally, categories which are sorted directly by name (without internal structuralization) are named "by name" (Rivers by name, Streets by name...). Only several above-mentioned categories deviate from this standard and should be unified to prevalent standard, which can be seen in case tens of examples:
Comment There are slightly more categories "by name", the "by alphabet" categories have the most contents, so it is tendentious to talk about a de facto or correct standard. --Foroa (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ŠJů, thanks for starting this page. This should facilitate discussing the question and avoids that people are tempted to paste the same arguments over numerous talk pages. As the categories now have {{Cfd}} notices, I will remove the identical {{Move}} tags. -- User:Docu at 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment either by name or by alphabet is fine by me as long as the category structure makes sense and we standardize to either one of them. We seem to have 40 by name categories and 24 by alphabet categories. Don't forget to put all the categories in a category like Category:Categories by alphabet. Multichill (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"X by name" is not redondant with "X" when you strt creating "by" categories, but. NJR_ZA already said it. A category for that is need, galleries are not really convenient. ~ bayo or talk12:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We talk about categorization. Various gallerie can be created, but they don't solve the categorization. For example, in case of Prague streets, it is useful to categorized separately by city district and paralelly citywide by name. What can solve some gallery? How do you want insert categories of individual streets into some gallery? --ŠJů (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not "categorizing". It's not a group. There is already "Category:Prague streets" which covers the group of all Prague streets. So why do you need a "Category:Prague streets by name"? Category:Prague streets by name is just an attempt to make one complete list - so make a list (gallery), not a category. You've made a category with no actual categorization. Wknight94talk02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose "replacing with galleries", first, because "by name" categories can be exceptionally large. A gallery of 2,000 images is unusable and unmanageable. And any manageable gallery of 200 can explode over 2,000 in quite a short time. Second, and more important. You suggest that editors, in addition to editing and tagging their pictures and categories, should also tinker with something called gallery? When? We have more than enough troubles with plain categorization ... NVO (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Based on alternative comments by Wknight94 --Stunteltje (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Comment In Dutch we say: "Op alphabet" in cases where we intent to group things by the sequence of the Dutch alphabet. As far as I know it works in English in the same way. I assume in every language grouping by alphabet means to store things by the sequence of the alphabet. It has nothing to do with the characters. As creator of the Category:Ships by alphabet I needed a fast tool to find out whether or not a ship had her own category on Commons. The category system allows me to change data and group ships fast, a tool that I didn'd find for lists. There I have to sort by hand and that is always a crime, as sorting by hand can be done in different ways. The category system hes a definate, standardised sorting. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Polish language also has similar phrase "alfabetycznie" which means sorted by name. Unfortunately similar phrases do not work in English language, where the most obvious interpretation of "by alphabet" would be sorting by the kind of the alphabet used (Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, etc.) --Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "By alphabet" (in Czech "podle abecedy") means often to arrange things by the sequence of letters in the alphabet. But all other criteria use alphabetical sorting as well. Countries in the "by country" category are sorted by alphabet, types in "by type" category as well. "By alphabet" haven't more predicating meaning than "by name". Both terms are comparable, but "by alphabet" has two different meanings, then it is ambiguous. --ŠJů (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commentfor those who may be unsure why we need "by alphabet / by name" at all: Commons sorts in a nested multi-level category structure. And we are supposed to ONLY categorise in the most exact subcats. The "by alphabet" categories intentionally circumvent this, by providing a list of ALL subcats at a very high levels, a "flattening out" if you want for when it is needed.
Example: "Hans Ronald Meier", a famous geologist (and later Senator) from Notabilistan, nests in a deep, deep category pit like "18th century geologists from Notabilistan" and "Senator of the 23rd Senate of Notabilistan". By placing him in Category:People by alphabet, there is a shortcut which does not involve hunting through hundreds of potential cats if you do not know / remember what / from where exactly he was.
The intention of such categories is to make a separate list that contains only names of categories, no other meta subcategories and that don't create so called "overcategorisation" problems. Now the Commons basic naming rule for category names is: "Topic (what it should contain) - [by classification/organisation method (year/location type/style/)]". Whenever there is a [by method], we know it is a metacategory that is in general a top category for a number of subcategory trees. As can be seen above in #Supplement, this [by classification] term is very often misunderstood and misused. Moreover, the by name/alphabet pseudo classification (because that is the way all categories are sorted), could create even more abusive "by name" category creation.
Now back to the basics. Most current discussed namings do not respect the standard commons naming structure as they dont really tell what should be in the category: we need only the names in our case. So, I am convinced that the following naming that says more precisely what we really want in the category, would be much more coherent with the Commons naming rules:
Info This seems to go into a direction Foroa attempted to go earlier, i.e. add things to subcategories simply because of their name, sample: make Category:Strossmayer square a subcategory of Category:Josip Juraj Strossmayer[diff.]. The categories we are discussing here are categories that are ordered alphabetically by name, not grouped by names. In most cases, making groups of things just because they are named in a similar way rarely helps. -- User:Docu at 13:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That sounds strange and like confusing things and names of things. What we require and are discussing about are categories for ships, airlines and companies, ordered alphabetically after their names. Names of ships, airlines and companies for instance written on signs are currently not subject of discussion. Categories like Category:Ship names, Category:Airline names and Category:Company names only make sense in rare, exceptionally cases for instance if on photos only a name of a thing (ship, airline, company) is visible, not the thing itself. -- Ies (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I replied to it several times already, but it seems that Foroa disregarded it. We categorize media files related to subjects, not media files related to subject names. Category "Albert Einstein" contains all related to this person, not all related to Einstein's name. We categorize grouped subjects (persons, streets, companies...) by name, we don't categorize names itself. When we use this type of metacategory, it is anologous to other metacategories. Every such metacategory contains usually the postfix "by (the first criterion of categorization)". When the first criterion is name (and not area or type or specialization etc.), it is absolutelly logical, systematical and consistent to use the postfix "by name". --ŠJů (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify "Category:Ships by alphabet --> Category:Ship names". Does that mean just that, names, i.e. listing HMS Ark Royal (now a disambig) alone instead of four distinct categories? Isn't it contrary to existing practice? NVO (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The second form is less clear than the first one. And "xxx in yyy by name" is automatically in "xxx in yyy". For exemple: there are: Rivers of France by name, Rivers of France by region, etc... and I personnally prefer "by name" than "by alphabet". To stick more to Foroa's question: what is a category ? It is identified by a name, it is a name. What is the name of Tiber ? It is "Tiber"; you cannot isolate the name from the category. You can sort objects by colour, by size, etc... but also by their names, too. Let's take an example: in Category:Street names in Prague, you don't just put the names, you put categories or photographs that have names (here: streets in Prague). Name is just an attribute which can be used as a key for sorting alphabetically. In this case, Category:Streets in Prague by name shows "Streets in Prague", sorted by name. Jack ma (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foroa's proposal highlights what I have been saying. The "By Name" vs. "Name" vs. "By Alphabet" problem is caused by general misuse of categories. An overall list of names is just that - a list - not a category. When you try to force a list into a category - because it's convenient or whatever - you run into this naming problem. You have one category - Streets of Prague - that holds all streets of Prague. Then you have a second category - Streets of Prague by name - that holds all streets of Prague. The first is a true category since it has subcategories and groupings. The second is a list. Lists go into articles (or "galleries" here). That's how the Wikipedias do it, and this is why. Wknight94talk12:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually that makes sense. There is no reason why the top level People from XXX has to contain only subcategories. Files can be in this category as well as subcategories such as Men from XXX or People from XXX by occupation/YYY. We can then simply get rid of the People from XXX by alphabet categories --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am indeed on a similar line as User:Wknight94 except that for pragmatic reasons, and the misunderstood "overcategorisation" problem, force to find some sort of compromise for exeptional cases. --Foroa (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every category works as (dynamically displayed) "list". Don't confuse categories (automatically sorted and automatically filled lists) with "lists" (as pages with manually inserted links). Let's don't use the word "list" in reference to categorization. Many users can prefer to search something sometimes by alphabetical order independently on more detailed thematic segmentation. For example, it is useful to categorize streets of some city by city district, but simultaneously, it is very useful to enable to search them alphabetically citywide (somebody can search some street independently on belonging to a district). "By name" categories are metacategories and they have just similar purpose as "by country" metacategories. When the main category contains many heterogeneous subcategories, it is needed to create homogenous subcategories. The category "Streets in Prague" contains not only subcategories of individual streets, but can contain also subcategories of streets by type, streets by district, street furniture and equipment, street net maps etc. As soon as we create the first metacategory, we have to create the "by name" metacategory at the same time, if we want to retain the possibility to search subjects by name directly without overcategorization. If some individual street categorie is included in "Streets in Prague by district", it cannot be kept in the main category "Streets in Prague". For the sorting by name as the first criterion we need to create the paralel metacategory. --ŠJů (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The key to your statement that bothers me is the word "sorting". Categories were not intended for sorting. They were intended for grouping. If your interest is sorting, the best solution is a sortable table. See m:Help:Sorting. In fact, you could have multiple columns (instead of just name) and sort by all of them on one page. Also, you link to metacategories but {{MetaCat}} has a link, Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION - but "name" is not in the section it links to. Categorizing "by name" is technically possible, and it does happen to sort by name, but it is the wrong tool for the job. Wknight94talk11:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of categories is neither grouping in itself nor sorting in itself, but efficient searching of media files. This purpose requires to group files by various relevant criteria as well as to sort the content of every category. Usefulness and desirableness of "by name" ("by alphabet") metacategories is sufficiently evident from the established practice (there exist more than 60 such metacategories currently). Sortable tables or text lists are intended for sorting of names or data, not for sorted grouping and searching of media files. The metacategories should enable to search media files by different criteria: metacategories "by name" ("by alphabet") should enable to search media files by the name of the subject as the first criterion. Why do you make an effort to disallow to search Prague streets by name or to search companies by name? --ŠJů (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me the discussion goes in the right direction. What I need is a fast tool to find the category of a ship. As former professional standardiser I am aware of the fact that sorting by hand results in many different lists, for that reason I prefer to use the category system with standardised sorting. But if there is another automated way, for me no problem to use it. Unfortunately it is a hell of of a job to change from one system to another, so initially it has to be done by a bot. If we decide to go that way. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And here you see immediately the problem illustrated. No location where you can drop a new name and where the sorting is done automatically. You have to do it by hand in a table !!! Possible, but not user frienly. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Wknight94: Yes, every category can be replaced with such table, theoretically. But I am convinced that categories have many advantages and shouldn't be abolished and replaced by lists (and that categories "by name" have exactly similar purpose and usefulness as other metacategories "by ..."). Various galleries can be created but is unreasonable and unsystematic to stand them for categories. If you consider categories "by name" as redundant, your table is redundant just like it. You solved nothing and your proposal deviate from principles of Commons. Manually maked lists of category links isn't advisable method for Commons, in contrast to metacategories. --ŠJů (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wknight94: Will you be able to manage the Prague list continuously, at least weekly? If yes, perhaps we should delete "Streets in Prague", and then see how it works out. You do realize that tabular charades take time and there's not enough volunteers, don't you? NVO (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think on it, the more I see that we ask our users to enter redundant information that is already present. We all know that in bigger databases, redundant information is evel. In some categories, especially the wierd rivers by region/department ones, some rivers need more than 6 categories, so little chance that those are correctly maintained. The lists we are talking about can be easily extracted by bots, could be refreshed even daily, but at least you are sure to have correct and coherent information. I think that Commons contributors can do more constructive tasks than adding non-necessary categories in an attempt to hide for the over-categorisation problem. --Foroa (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you try to tell. Parallel categorization by various useful criteria isn't overcategorization. On the other hand, metacategories are very good tool to avoid overcategorization. If many small rivers are categorized by region/department, few major rivers shouldn't be missing in such categories. Also it is helpful to enable search rivers and streets etc. directly by name: many users can search some French river or some Prague street by name without knowing regions or districts. Maintainance of this functionality isn't a overcategorization. Btw, "overlisting" and "overboting" isn't fewer problematical than "overcategorization". --ŠJů (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it is necessary to consider reasonably what levels are useful to create "by name" categories. But clearly such cases exist that such metacategories are needed and advantageous. For example, "streets in (city) by name" can have reason that street name is unique within the frame of one city. "Ships by name" can have purpose in the world-over level because many ships can sail worldwide, etc. --ŠJů (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And next will be "ships by name by type", "sailing ships by type by name", "Sailing yachts by class by name", "Sailing ships by rig by name", ... and before you know it, you have to restart it allover again because of overcategorisation. We have to think on simple but polyvalent long term solutions. --Foroa (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we can see, implementation of metacategories is a long term and systematic solution to apply more categorization criteria concurrently. Most "simple solution" would be to abolish all categories and all galleries etc. But "be simple" isn't the sole purpose of Commons. The primary purpose is "be functional". Many of categories "by name" ("by alphabet") are useful. In some cases they forms the basic metacategory (e. g. in Prague only minority of streets in categorized in "streets by districts", but all street categories are categorized "by name") in other cases "by name" categories have an additional "bypass" function. However, in both types they can be useful. We can discuss usefulness in individual cases, but it would be headless to refuse "by name" categories generally. --ŠJů (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
category:Streets and squares of Moscow isn't a metacategory of this type. Only if somebody will create (for example) the category "Streets and squares of Moscow by district", the next category "Streets and squares of Moscow by name" would make sense (as far as the global list have to be kept). Btw, the preposition "of" should be replaced with "in" by naming policy. --ŠJů (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Foroa wrote (18:32, 5 December 2009) about wasting time by entering redundant information by user. This is a big problem and it will growing if commons will growing. Examples: Category:Johann Sebastian Bach (2*composer, 2*person), Category:Johann Sebastian Bach on stamps (3*person, 3*stamps, 2*composer+1*musician, 3*Germany) or Category:Condoleezza Rice (2*politician, 1*from Alabama+1*from the United States, 3*African American, 2*person) there are some redundant categorization inputs now, though there is no excessively categorizing (not by gender, not by city,). Several times the user entered the same data about the persons homeland, ethnik group and/or the state the persons is working for, the occupation and the information that the person is a person, and more. Better way is to enter data only one time and generate several permanent (or temporary) categories (or lists) automatically by using the interactiv created datasets. --Diwas (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Major problem here is data redundancy and coherency. It is for example next to impossible to check for even simple cases if the rivers in France is are all the right categories. I guess that no one can tell the percentage of completeion of all the towns in the UK, Germany or France. The deeper categories go, and the more we have "parallel" categories, the more problematic this becomes. We might maybe better explore first the database query facilities and catscan potential in stead of continuously adding "parallel" categories. --Foroa (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Regions" is vague. It might often refer, for example, to an autonomous community such as Andalusia or Navarre, or a mancomunidad (a bottom-up association of municipalities). Everything (or virtually everything) under this category is a comarca and, indeed, the Spanish-language heading on the page is "Comarcas de España". (A comarca is comparable to a "shire"; unfortunately, it can't be translated as "county" because parts of Spain have a history of counties in the narrow sense: ruled by a count.)
Many (perhaps most) of the autonomous regions formally recognize comarcas. In others, the designation is more informal. Andalusia's new 2007 Statute of Autonomy allows for the beginning of formal recognition there. The term is, to the best of my knowledge, used throughout the country (although in Catalonia and - I think - in Asturias it is pluralized comarques rather than comarcas). I think we should do one of the following:
2) we can keep this name at the level of the country, but for the autonomous communities that formally recognize comarcas, the categories specific to those communities should use "comarcas / comarques" as appropriate.
1) seems plausible to me - in fact, with "region" there always will be confusion:
the term shoud't be applied to administrative levels, but to other areas (cf. w:region: In general, a region is a medium-scale area of land or water, smaller than the whole areas of interest (which could be, for example, the world, a nation, a river basin, mountain range, and so on), and larger than a specific site. - see there for more)
I will point out again that at the moment the category page says "Español: Comarcas de España", so it shouldn't be used for (for example) mancomunidades. And I certainly agree that we need to accommodate the multi-language issue in terms of category names (and further in terms of remarks at the top of the category pages); as far as category names, is there any autonomous community where it is unclear what would be the appropriate language? I would assume Gallego in Galicia, Catalan/Valencian (same language) in Catalonia & Valencia, Basque in the Basque Country and Navarre, Castilian/Spanish (same language, at least for the relevant vocabulary, with apologies to the Andalusians etc.) elsewhere. Maybe Asturian in Asturias? - Jmabel ! talk06:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing thread. Please rename "Regions" to "Comarcas" if they hold only such subcategories. Create a new Comarcas categories where needed to hold such subcategories. -- User:Docu at 10:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly agree. We should use Asturias because it is normal in English. Slightly unfortunate, because it is the Castilian rather than the Asturian form of the word, and some asturianos are unhappy to see that form used, but normal English usage has to win out. - Jmabel ! talk20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've corrected the second entry in the list (it was previously proposing to rename "Geography of Asturies" to a duplicate "Cider from Asturias". Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Asturias is widely used even in Asturias itself. It is necessary to point out that asturian languaje is not official although it is widely protected, except in some municipalities. Asturias is the form most used, most known and official.AdelosRM ! talk
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.
Later note. As of January 7, 2010 (see my comment farther down) I suggested renaming this category rather than deleting it. I put up a {{Move}} tag on the category page March 10, 2010 (see another comment of mine farther down). --Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the inclusion criteria is so vague that it boils down to "a carton I don't like". We should also have stricter inclusion criteria for the parent category to avoid the content from just being moved up. // Liftarn (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very important category. If there is disagreement than it should be discussed. This is like throwing the water with the baby. Kooritza (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Political cartoons. So why do we need this category? Are we going to put all racist and bigoted cartoons in Category:Propaganda cartoons? All cartoons for going to war? Category:Propaganda is for obvious government propaganda. It isn't really propaganda unless the government does it. Only a government has the additional ability to effectively block most or nearly all disagreeing opinions. Or overwhelm all other media by increasing the volume of the government media. And by the self-censorship of private media, especially during times of war, or buildup to war. That is what really turns government media, press, and graphics into propaganda. Are we going to put in all the private-media cartoons that used words like "gook" during the Vietnam War. What about cartoons using "towelhead" and "raghead" during the Gulf War, Iraq War, and Afghanistan War. What about the many hate-filled cartoons on major web sites such as Free Republic, Fox News, etc.. What about cartoons using code-word racism? What about cartoons used as tools in these types of efforts: en:Spin (public relations), en:Media manipulation, en:Framing (social sciences), en:Fear mongering, code wordracism, en:Smear campaign, en:Attack ad, en:Managing the news, en:Gatekeeping (communication), en:Bandwagon effect, en:Disinformation, en:Flag-waving, en:Scapegoating. It all comes down to strong differences of opinion. Propaganda is when the government backs up one of those opinions, and intimidates differing opinions. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's than make sure (by using inclusion criteria and enforcing them) that only actual government propaganda gets included in the category. Otherwise it will just be a trash heap of cartoons someone objects to. // Liftarn (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let us wait until the discussion is closed; I do not believe that there is any consensus just yet to change the focus of Category:Propaganda to governmental only. I agree that this category should follow whatever Category:Propaganda is, as this is just a proper subset containing cartoons. -- Avi (talk) 22:17, 7 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.
I think this kind of source category is not wanted. Otherwise the automatic categorization wouldn't have been discontinued. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Italic text
For a start, i'm not quite sure if this is the right category anyway. But user:Roland zh added it about a year ago into one of my articles on german WP ({http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl-Marx-Werk&action=historysubmit&diff=53963043&oldid=53605548]) and i thought about it. There are tons of pics from the german Bundesarchiv available, but most o'them are not correctly categorised, as i found out at my various searches for pics related to coal mining in Zwickau district (my hometown). Maybe category:Mining in Zwickau would be more precise, at least for my purposes. But that would left my fellow countrymen out in the open, who are looking for pics from the past, related to Zwickau, but not to mining. So after all this category makes perfectly sense (imho). greets, --Markscheider (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For that purpose you should create Category:Karl-Marx-Werk and add the pictures where applicable. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
And how should someone then find images, which are related to the Zwickau region and are old _and_ are in the public domain? Afaik there exists no cross over search routine; i.e. if a single image is categorized as Category:ZwickauCategory:MiningCategory:Bundesarchiv you can find it in each of those categories, but not combined. Or do i miss a point here? --Markscheider (talk) 09:11, 23 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.
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.
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]
This category groups all association football players in the world by team. Wouldn't categorising these teams by country first, then the teams themselves, be more sensible, as I started to do here? thanks for your input. --Missionary (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to me too, unless you can't remember which is the country of the team you're looking for. Anyway, it is a step that had to be done sooner or later, because the list in the mother category is getting bigger. --Arinsau (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see any problems with sorting by country first. While this category is discussed should the subcategories be standardised to "Players of CLUBNAME"? Now I think most categories are named like that, but there are some exceptions that use "CLUBNAME footballers", "CLUBNAME players" and other kinds of names. /Ö15:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with the proposal to sort by countries, but looking at the Brazilian example, we should probably sort the players of the national teams by a star (*) so they don't get mixed alphabetically with the clubs. TFCforever (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is now consensus, and I have moved all the categories in question into "by country" ones styled like Missionary's original "Brazil" category. TFCforever (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "item" isn't perfectly accurate here in my opinion. In the English language Wikipedia that also uses this term, it's appropriate to use it, because it's either the permission for an article or a file. Here on Commons, we don't receive "permissions" for an article, so it's only used for files. The category name should also reflect that in my opinion, so Move to Category:Files with OTRS permission confirmed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep using the current name for the following reasons:
This category does not only contain files, it also contains 29 subcategories and 311 pages. Admittedly, some of those pages are templates which could use includeonly tags and template documentation pages which could use nocat parameters to avoid such categorization.
Some of the pages that would have to be changed are protected.
The following categories, which are normally empty except for pages needing attention, should be incorporated into this discussion, for the same reasons:
There could conceivably be non-file text in any namespace outside the "File" namespace that is only allowed here by virtue of permission evidenced in an OTRS ticket, and "item" is a better description of that text than "file".
Keep - Just sounds like splitting hairs. The use of the phrase "isn't perfectly accurate" about sums it up. 99.9% accurate is good enough for me, unless that .1% rears it's head in some ugly way. --J.smith (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There are several categories that I think should be reorganized. We currently have Category:Air tanker, Category:Waterbomber and Category:Firefighting aircraft. Up here in Canada we manufactured the Canadair 215 and Canadair 415 -- the only aircraft purpose-built and designed to serve as waterbombers, from scratch. Disclaimer: I started Category:Waterbomber. About a year ago another contributor moved all the images from Category:Waterbomber to Category:Air tanker. I thought then, and continue to think that this was a mistake. "Air tanker" is ambiguous -- it could refer to tanker aircraft. With regard to whether Category:Firefighting aircraft is a better alternative than Category:Waterbomber... Up here in Canada a spotter aircraft, with a senior pilot, colloquially called a "bird dog" aircraft, orbits the fire, and tells the waterbombers where and when to drop their loads. These are also firefighting aircraft, but are not waterbombers. The structure I think makes the most sense would be for "air tanker" to be reserved for the aircraft used for refueling other aircraft. I think the current subcategories of various models of waterbomber should be moved to the category "waterbomber", and that waterbomber, and a category for the "bird dog" spotter aircraft should sit under firefighting aircraft. Helicopters that dip a bucket into a body of water, and then release the water over a fire could be considered "firefighting aircraft", without being considered "waterbombers", so perhaps there should be a "Category:Firefighting helicopters. Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, while Waterbomber may be the preferred term in Canada, it is not the common term, in generic usage or, more importantly in referenceable in industry literature, nor is it the official term in the U.S. In officialdom, airtanker is (note, spelled as all one word, although it does appear sometimes as two words). How do we approach this national/cultural language difference? We could do it democratically, although wikimedia isn't a democracy...in other words, how many airtankers/waterbombers come from Canada, and how many are US-built aircraft? As a further to that, the Canadair scoopers don't just drop water, they land in it too, which is a major difference between them and US built aircraft. Just some thoughts. Akradecki (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Geo Swan, especially on the structure as he proposes it. However, Akradecki may be right on the naming nomenclature (I can't make a call on that). Where and how it lands does not really seem to make a difference. As for resolution: Category:Air tanker clearly makes me think of "aircraft refueling aircraft". Possibly disambiguate as in "air tanker (firefighting)"? Ingolfson (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Akradecki asks "...how many airtankers/waterbombers come from Canada, and how many are US-built aircraft?" Well, technically, no US firm has ever built waterbombers. As I wrote above the Canadair aircraft are the only aircraft built to serve as waterbombers. Other aircraft serve as waterbombers, but they are retrofits from aircraft designed for other purposes. According to Canadair CL-215 and Canadair CL-415 just under 200 of these aircraft have been built.
FWIW the Canadair waterbombers aren't the only ones that could land on bodies of water, or that scooped water from bodies of water. WW II PBYs are among the aircraft adapted to serve as waterbombers that were adapted to scoop their payload. Geo Swan (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Waterbomber purely because it avoids confusion with aerial refuelling aircraft. I would also keep the Firefighting aircraft category as the parent cat of "waterbomber.--KTo288 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed that this CFD is still active, over two years after it started. Personally, I've always been comfortable with the terms firefighting aircraft, water bombers and airtankers since the 1960s, but I'm not resident in a nation where they are in use. I would be interested to learn if airtanker or waterbomber has the more common usage in the US, rather than the official term. Anyway, I will make some proposals:
We retain Firefighting aircraft as the parent cat, move the content of Air tanker into that, because any difference is not at all clear. Air tanker can be made a soft redirect.
We make a new subcategory Firefighting helicopters, that will hopefully negate the problem of deciding if each subject image shows some form of tanker.
Where adapted aircraft are used in the activity, and sufficient images exist, we create subcategories using the basic name of the aircraft type plus the word "airtankers". It would be pluralized because such aircraft don't (usually) conform to a single definable standard. I have already incorporated such a structure in category:Agricultural aircraft.
First of all, I apologize! I read over this discussion too fast.
I agree with most of your proposals (and in fact we are doing duplicate work as I write). However, it is not clear to me that "waterbomber" refers to an aircraft specifically designed for that activity. The [[16]] and English Wikipedia articles do not make such a distinction.
I’m still unsure about how the consensus you describe translates in practice, so I will follow your re-organization before I write. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have worked a lot to clean-up and diffuse the categories under discussion. To sum up on the situation now:
[[:Category:{Aircraft name} waterbomber]] for aircraft specifically/significantly modified to drop water on fires
[[:Category:{Aircraft name} firefighting]] for aircraft whose primary activity is not firefighting (eg. crop dusters)
I call on everyone to check on my work and I hope that this is a sufficiently clear structure that we can remove the pending CfD. Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I foresee problems with the term "bird-dog", that seems to be unencyclopedic and ambiguous (Cessna L-19 Bird Dog). en:WP only has (inconsistent) use in Buffalo Airways, where it seems to be more of a slang term. Its common use in north America for retrieval of shot birds also appears to be unfamiliar elsewhere; in UK, the normal term for that is "gun dog". In Jendsch 2008, Aerial Firefighting, "bird dog" (or bird-dog or birddog) is not used, but the role is separated into two very separate functions, "command plane" and "lead plane". Johnsen 2010 Fire Bombers in Action does use the term, but inconsistently, mixed with "spotter" and sometimes qualified with "(lead plane)". BTW, crop duster is technically applicable only to aircraft dropping seeds, fertiliser solids or insecticide dust via drop doors or venturis, rather than the more common agricultural practice of spraying liquids from aircraft via piping and nozzles.PeterWD (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info. The Wikipedia category is now at en:Category:London boroughs. There was discussion at cfd there. -- User:Docu at 11:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Done per suggestion Foroa - they are now called Placename, (Royal) borough of London. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Support As I have noted, I since agree with ŠJů that we should remove "Railways" as a category branch. The limited number of cats in there should be moved to the corresponding "rail transport in X-country" or "rail transport companies" or "railway lines" categories. Ingolfson (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment A couple of points - deleting images here does not actually save any space (which is why we can undelete images quickly too). We don't delete "superseded" images either. Categories contain all revisions of images, if there is lots of poor quality or redundant images to sort through then create a gallery for that subject. There is not really any reason to delete either small images or "bad" images even if they are not used, or have been superseded. If they are so chronically bad (unfocused or extraordinarily bad quality), with no conceivable use apart from an example of bad images and we have an alternative, then yes, ok, nominate them for deletion.
Delete most files concerning a specific substance are skeletal formulae. Since there is a complete cattree for these files a parellel cat tree makes no sence. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Please look again. There are now the following categories:
Not done move (1)
Keep hi again truth; you do seem to have quite an agenda against my categorizations! i think perhaps you should consider your nominations more carefully. your comment in this case shows an amazing ignorance of the subject. setting aside consideration of purely mythological creatures, there are endless cultic/religious representations of other species which often involve genitalia. there are also representations in erotic art & more casual, or even humourous art. i'm not clear if your problem is with the subject of genitalia, or with understanding how logical categorization of topics works, in an archival files system, but your nominations are beginning to border on vandalism. please think them through more carefully in the future! cheers Lx 121 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC) And as I have no idea how this discussion can be closed officially, I have removed the proposal template nonetheless. -- H005 
QuestionHow to proceed meanwhile? Continue as it was? Gomera-b (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
_-_Blumenau_IMG_1838.JPG)
_-_Blumenau_IMG_1835.JPG)
OK erm, try en:Chiese for the river? I agree with the proposal. I'll have a quick look at where all these churches are, move them to country-level perhaps. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Lotje (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Rename . OK. Then I suggest restricting it by changing the name to Category:Government propaganda cartoons. We already have Category:Political cartoons. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Move to Category:Files with OTRS permission confirmed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)