I marked it as "empty for deletion". There was no need to open this discussion. Next time ask help from an admin or simply write "Empty page" within double {} sign. --E4024 (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please delete this category, which I created? This is a typo; meant to be "Bread and Ink Cafe", and there is already a category by this name. Thanks! Another Believer (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bitte löschen, denn es existiert inzwischen eine Kategorie mit dem korrekten Namenszusatz "(Wuppertal)" statt "(Wpppertal)". Die Kategorie ist neu angelegt und wurde und wird nicht benutzt. Im Fokus (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gut, wenn du meinst lassen wir das weg. Auch Category:SVG_text_logos:Path_text, hingegen gibt es bei Karten und Chemieformeln sowohl/als auch, da erscheint es mir sinnvoll zu differenzieren? Leeren liessen sich diese Kategorien entweder indem mit VFC der Haken entfernt wird, oder indem das im subtemplate geändert wird - ist zukunftsicherer; und ev. kann der dabei erzeugte Hinweistext bleiben? -- sarang♥사랑02:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon. Today I was called my attention about this category, which I consider a "User category". I created it in 2013; as far as I can see, there are over 7,000 "user categories" at Commons.
Is my category correct?
Do I have to change its name or content?
Do I have to create sub-categories for some contents, or maybe eliminate some pictures?
There is no limit to how many files (or which files) you put in your category. It would be a good idea to rename it so that it is clear at first sight that this is a user category. Common choices are Files by Fadesga or Photos by Fadesga. The renaming can be done by a bot, you just need to say which category name you want to use. --rimshottalk00:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your advice. Now I am creating the Category:Files by Fadesga and asking all the files to be moved there. Please consider this thread as closed.
If this sounds good for you, for me it doesn't. But I don't insinst on the current name, it was a spontaneous creation. The actual form by the Bundesdenkmalamt (the Federal authority for the cultural heritage) is Ehem. Kunstabteilungen der Österreichischen Staatsdruckerei, that is something like Former art department of the Austrian state printing house. This is by the way the reason why I am very sceptical of the befoerementioned policy: translations into english often come out very clumsy and they always border on original research. -- Clemens13:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a clearly a literal description of the building, not a title (which I wouldn't propose for renaming). I don't think "Former art department of the Austrian State Printing House" sounds the least bit clumsy, though perhaps a little long. Would you prefer Category:Hotel Belvedere, Vienna with a description of it's former purpose in the category description? It's current title is "NH Wien Belvedere" but that doesn't seem appropriate. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With this name I'm fine. I will also change the links from this category into Wikipedia once the renaming has been done. (these links are e.g. in the cultural heritage list of the district). --Clemens00:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The best procedure here would be to either redirect this category to the new one, or put a {{Category renamed}} template on it so that it will get deleted. Neither option requires a discussion here. The same applies to the other similar categories nominated. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the above "closed" discussions on how to proceed. No need to bring these here. I marked the empty cat for deletion. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This category was originally intended for mass deletion of unused personal images, but in the Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unused personal files iteration from September 8, 2017, that became controversial. Yann (talk·contribs) stated he was against mass deletion in that manner, and removed the text on the category page. Nobody seemed to be able to come up with a coherent definition of "personal file", either. More recently, it's been the target of INeverCry (talk·contribs) sockpuppets.
Apocheir uses the category and is still in favour of deletion. Aside from an astonishing number of INC sock puppets, I see it has also been used by Ruff tuff cream puff recently. Any thoughts, RTCP? (If nothing else, it might be helpful in identifying INC sock puppets...) - Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I put a couple files in there because I thought we were still using it for something, but I agree it's not worth keeping: there is no use for it, and Category:Personal images is a fine place to store "personal images", whether they are in use or not. Unused ones can always be cleaned out and proposed for deletion if they have no potential educational value, as suggested above. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you all understand that “personal images” is pretty much all images we host, except maybe traffic camera footage stills and the like.
For many (including the disgusting character mentioned above), though, this category is a handy receptacle to store photos of brown people, as an antechamber to deletion — which is one more reason to dismiss this whole charade.
Delete This has the potential to become huge to no apparent purpose, and it's not an obvious intersection. The concept could easily be dealt with using PetScan. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is really necessary, it should be renamed such that "Michigan Univ." becomes part of its name. Currently, it just contains 2 images; so I'd suggest to delete it. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a somewhat subjective category and many of the images might not fit the name of the category. Could be renamed "unintentionally funny road signs" and re-sorted if some of these really need to be in a category, but most of these don't belong or can go in the subcategories. Jc86035 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I thought absurd is something like using a road sign as a frisbee to fly to the Moon (just spin it really hard, trust me, it works). Perhaps this photo is absurd, others are not. And many of them aren't really contradictory, either. Which one prevails? quite obvious, isn't it... Retired electrician (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even that photo isn't particularly absurd—it looks to me like a straightforward marking of a public-right-of-way footpath across farmland of the type you see in pretty much any rural area anywhere in the world where a farmer is obliged to allow a route across the farm but doesn't want people trampling the crops. I could probably give you a dozen similar examples within a ten-minute walk of me. — iridescent11:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Contradictory" and "joke" are clear and unambiguous. Absurd or funny are rather arbitrary. I don't understand, for instance, why this sign is amusing. (Lost in translation?) I'd suggest creating a gallery and deleting this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This blazon is too unique to fill an entire category with images. Apart from that we categorise coats of arms according to charges, tinctures and numbers, but not into entire blazons. I have moved the only applicable image from this category to the respective parent categories, which leaves this one empty. De728631 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I migrated all photos from Category:SZ Class 732 to Category:SŽ series 732. I changed 'Class' to 'series' in order to make it the same as most other categories of Slovenian trains, and corrected Z to Ž. So this category shall be removed. 2A00:EE2:500:7500:E1DC:1FD1:D0BB:F73A16:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I migrated all photos from Category:SZ Class 644 to Category:SŽ series 644. I changed 'Class' to 'series' in order to make it the same as most other categories of Slovenian trains, and corrected Z to Ž. So this category shall be removed. 2A00:EE2:500:7500:E1DC:1FD1:D0BB:F73A16:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I migrated all photos from Category:SZ Class 732 to Category:SŽ series 732. I changed 'Class' to 'series' in order to make it the same as most other categories of Slovenian trains, and corrected Z to Ž. So this category shall be removed. 2A00:EE2:500:7500:E1DC:1FD1:D0BB:F73A16:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I migrated all photos from Category:SZ Class 644 to Category:SŽ series 644. I changed 'Class' to 'series' in order to make it the same as most other categories of Slovenian trains, and corrected Z to Ž. So this category shall be removed. 2A00:EE2:500:7500:E1DC:1FD1:D0BB:F73A16:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Такой изогнутый вид здания Двенадцати коллегий на картинке: "SPB-Univer-12kol.jpg 9359 × 2231; 9,5 МБ", сделанный в фото редакторе, вводит людей в заблуждение!
Нет такого изогнутого здания Двенадцати коллегий в Санкт-Петербурге!
Полагаю, что место этой картинки в разделе: "Творчество умелых ручек"
I am Sandra Lázaro, author this photographys and as indicated by it accreditation it has Copyright, not a CC license. The eldiario.es licence saids: " Estas condiciones tienen las siguientes excepciones: - No se aplica a los contenidos (textos, gráficos, informaciones, imágenes...) publicados por eldiario.es procedentes de terceros que vayan firmados o sean atribuibles a agencias de información (EFE, Europa Press...) o a cualquier otra empresa diferente de Diario de Prensa Digital, S.L. Todos los derechos sobre estos contenidos quedan estrictamente reservados a su titular (la agencia) y, por tanto, no podrán ser reproducidos, distribuidos, transformados o comunicados públicamente sin el consentimiento expreso de su titular. - Los dibujos de los viñetistas también son Creative Commons, aunque no podrán ser reproducidos con fines comerciales (cc-by-nc). " Look this link: http://www.eldiario.es/licencia/ I request the fast erase of all the photographs 95.125.169.320:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a third-party? Can you justify it? Can you provide a proof-of-identity and any additional argumentation to COM:OTRS? Thanks --Discastotalk21:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm Sandra Lázaro and I'm freelance. To prove it, if you want, I'll send you my freelance receipt that I pay each month, but obviously I will not make it public. If you want, give me an email and I'll send it to you. I am a collaborator, I am not a staff member.
This category is unnecessary (all flags of the Soviet Union are historical) and currently empty; I propose deletion. Alkari(?), 24 January 2018, 23:52 UTC 23:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This category is unnecessary (all flags of the Soviet Union are historical) and currently empty; I propose deletion. Alkari(?), 24 January 2018, 23:52 UTC 23:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you have admin tools. If you're sure of which words are the correct ones, just arrange the subcats and delete the wrong cats. Not much to discuss, I guess. --E4024 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need for these categories - I actively patrol the Unidentified vans category and as there's very little images in the main one it makes more sense to have them in one main cat as opposed to individual ones, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk00:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This entire category tree should be deleted because Spring 2018 is two months away in the northern hemisphere and even longer in the southern hemisphere. I recategorized the two files that were here. Leaving the categories in the meantime would just attract files that would be miscategorized. Auntof6 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, "Spring" occurs at different times of the year in different parts of the world. Much better to categorise by months and locations to avoid surprising users. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All categories from Spring 2017 are harmful. They conflate our northern spring (about March–May) with spring in such places as Australia and Patagonia (about September–November). The same for other three seasons, of course. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a good point, although it's way outside the scope of what I had in mind here. There are also different definitions of spring (and other seasons) even within one hemisphere. You give one. Mine is strictly by calendar, based on the equinoxes and solstices. The creator of the categories being discussed here responded on his/her talk page, saying that "botanical spring" has already begun: if new growth on plants is the issue, we'd be better served with categories like "new growth on plants by date" or something like that. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For me, spring is seen in nature - botanically - as well as in January/February 2016 and 2014 in Europe. I do not post images of buildings/cities etc where you can not see the season here, we have definetively already spring flora --anro (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spring will be in early summer? Winter begins in autumn? We can't categorize that way. You might get the first new plant growth in summer, or the first snow in autumn, but that doesn't mean you have spring or winter at those times. All these differing definitions are the reason we probably need to categorize by month instead of season. In the northern hemisphere, if trees are getting new buds in January, then they're getting them in winter, not spring. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense to me at all as a category, and I have opened a discussion on them as well. We need to decide what definition of each season we're going to use here on Commons. I can't imagine we'd use one where seasons overlap like that: if we do, then there's no point in having season categories at all. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all of the above reasons. Plus we'll end up with photos taken inside sorted by season and year. (Class photos from Fall Semester 2018?)- Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The winter one is reasonable, because winter 2017 in Argentina has already happened. Any spring 2018 categories are premature at this point, because spring 2018 starts in March 2018 in the northern hemisphere, and in September 2018 in the southern hemisphere. My argument isn't that those categories should never exist, just that there's nothing currently in them that belongs there. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Originally I just thought that this cat was premature, but now I see other issues with it as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The result was close early (procedural closure), the whole category tree should be nominated if this one should be deleted, original argument and subsequent now moot. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very questionable, since the dog is not notable. I'd suggest upmerging these files, and there might even be reason to delete the files. Commons is not your personal photo album. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like User:Pivox confuses these category discussions with deletion discussions. If we look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:1960 Turkish coup we can see this more clearly. Even in that case, defending to "keep" a duplicate category is difficult to understand. I try to avoid giving too many opinions on this user's categories, because nobody likes to be accused of shouting when they are not. Look at User talk:Pivox; my first note there is intended to help them. Unfortunately in vain... Sorry for talking about a user but this is also speaking about their edits (in this case cats opened by them) that take too much of other people's time and energy to correct. Again, sorry Pivox. --E4024 (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So that in future you might perhaps look first if there is already a (correctly named) category before inventing an (incorrectly named) one as so often happens? - Takeaway (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue to discuss ignoring my nomination. Firstly I said I'm confused. Secondly I open discussions where I see "things" and leave it -sometimes- to more clever people to continue the debate, address the issues, detect problems and find solutions. --E4024 (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’d suggest a grammar tweak (namely, Smiling women (closed mouth) to incite less laughter about Commons “plural everywhere”), but generally, Keep.
Whether the mouth (note singular) is open or closed – that’s the distinction important for this step. No preference about grinning/smiling vocabulary in the left case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There are many "smiling" photos in Wikimedia Commons. For that reason, I think sub-categorising is effective measure (male/female, mouths opened/closed). Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] Even in that case it shouldn't be singular. (Some occasional visitors open cats here, without understanding how to do it, then other people get tired of discussing... Forget the parentheses please.) --E4024 (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this category contains only photos of birds in a cage, so I don't see why it should be a geography category. They are apparently not wild birds in a geographical location. There is no context to the photos; you can't tell where the cage is located and it is not clear why the location of the cage is important. "Bulacan" seems a bit specific and there is no parent category (e.g. Fauna of Bulacan). Also, if we keep the category it should have the binomial name instead of a common name. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message; good evening from here, Philippines and Happy New Year; I agree with your suggestions and I respectfully remain very sincerely yours, and best regards -Judgefloro 13:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC) (talk)
I usually think of "headgear" as subset of things that people wear on their heads -- something high-tech like headsets, something like helmets, headphones, the devices people with braces wear that go around the back of the neck, etc. -- and not as clothing. However, since Category:Headgear seems to include everything, then I'd support renaming these to be consistent. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the plates here are all Belgian. If they are from other places but were photographed in Belgium, then "in Belgium" would apply. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I did not make a rhetorical question. Look into all the cats surrounding this one to understand what I aim at. (Then also explain it to me. :) --E4024 (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see categorizing license plates by location as very useful, especially when it's a picture of just a license plate, with no other content illustrating where it's located. A French license plate doesn't look any different when the car drives across the border to Belgium. Sub-categorizing by city is even more useless. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the category can still be expanded. That I know of, I could still photograph:
- St. Luke Serbian Orthodox Church in Potomac, Maryland.
- the SerbFest that is being held in May 2018 in Potomac.
- the Euro Mart in Rockville that sells Serbian and Balkan food.
- Balkanic Taste, a Serbian and Balkan food and catering company in Maryland.
I'm not very knowledgeable about Compact сassettes or their collections; but the mother cat (Category:Compact Cassette) is written with capital c (twice) and some other cats follow that practice. What about this one, must we rename (move) it? E4024 (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An experienced user took the van Gogh cat out. Now this cat has only one file and it is overcategorization. I propose to delete this cat. --E4024 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While we have a Category:People of the Turkish Army under the Category:Military people of Turkey by service, since 2012, a user opened this cat, under a wrong parent cat, last year. As the same user has also edited the correct cat -although later reverted their own edit- I understand they are well aware that now we have two cats for one entry. I am emptying the wrong cat, but opened this discussion so that people may expose their ideas and search for consensus to make a better categorization around the Turkish Armed Forces. E4024 (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jotzet: Thank you for your correction! Probably I misread the date "March 2012" as "May 2012" and created incorrect category. This type of incorrect date category can be removed by issuing {{Bad name|correct category name}} tag on the incorrect category. --Clusternote (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commons ist kein privater Webhoster, auf dem Bilder thematisch nach Ausflügen sortiert werden. Die Kategorie gehört daher gelöscht und die Bilder in die reguläre Fernsehturm-Kategorie umsortiert. Steak (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "Category:Ski jumpers by country" but we have this one, and only with one country cat in it. Is this alright? E4024 (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Louis.attene, I support the opening of cats for females, in this case for "sportswomen", "in principle". I have no idea about this sport. I tried to read partly the discussion elsewhere and I was confused. Is this sport not categorized (I mean by the governing authority, the Federation or Confederation whatsoever) as for "men" and "women", "young men", "girls" etc? Somewhere I saw something like a woman participating in a "male" (sic) team. Was it an exception or mixed teams are commonplace? (I know a Turkish female volleyball player, one of the first, a hundred years ago; she played with Fenerbahçe men -and as captain!- as there were no formal female teams yet.) Please tell us more about the "gender" issue in "this sport", then we see what to do in Commons. I mean is there something "special" as regards "gender" in this particular sport? --E4024 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks to all for response. @Themightyquill: , an user rollbacked all my categorization about this..As you can see, the category is empty now. Please take a look at this "discussion".. @E4024: , you're right, "doubles" discipline are allowed for both (male or female) although in fact are employed men only, for the major strenght, weight etc.. the governing body (the FIL) have introduced the "women's double" as a test, for the Youth Olympics of Lausanne 2020. But i don't wanna divide the disciplines, only create a "database" (categorization) for women's, as to be easily to find in a search by the user.. nothing more. The governing body is the same for male and female. Now my question: is this a discriminant? I have done the same in bobsleigh and skeleton and no one rollbacked (the policy of the governing body (IBSF) are the same, in 4-men bobsleigh may participate women too, since some year ago)--Louis.attene (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any policy that says you cant divide the category. However there are not so many that demand splitting it. The numbers of Female Lugers is extraordinary compared to the other winter sports cats, but not when you look at for example Category:Female politicians of the United Kingdom. In the interests of simplicity I wouldn't separate the Lugers by gender. They are already split by name which is sufficient. In policy the "Simplicity principle" suggests minimalism is the way to go, and it warns against "over-categorisation". Splitting the category does not improve the Wiki in any way. Splitting it was an inordinate amount of work for minimal gain, other parts of the Wiki are in more care of attention. The specifics of the sport, and gender of participants has no relevance here. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love some clarification on this category tree. These are private images of buildings which listed in a book? That seems a very weird way to categorize things. Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense to me, either. Grouping files because the things they show were in a book together? Only if these are the actual images that were in the book, but that's doubtful because the subcats of the county-specific categories are not specific to the book. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took the easy way out an upmerged everything to the parent categories, "Building in X county". This undoubtedly caused a lot of overcategorization (in parent and child categories) but there was no progress on this CFD in years. Better to get it over with, and not risk losing location information. - 12:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I've moved all the images out of this category, and I don't see why the parent category (Ford Model T (1924-1925)) needs this subcategory, since the 1924 and 1925 vehicles were practically identical. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This category currently exists as a redirect to Category:1795 in Great Britain, because the "United Kingdom" as a political entity did not exist until 1800. Its only content is one subcategory, Category:1795 works in the United Kingdom. The "works" category transcludes {{WorksUKCat}}, which in turn contains an "#ifexist" template that automatically inserts the page into the "[Year] in United Kingdom" category if it exists. Therefore, if the category is deleted, the "works" subcategory will no longer incorrectly be categorized here. R'n'B (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't really my point, WFinch. My point was that the only content in this category at the time I made this proposal was a subcategory that would be automatically recategorized by a template if this redirect were deleted. That category has since ceased to populate this one. Accordingly, my request is now moot. --R'n'B (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I propose renaming all "sportswomen" categories to use the term "female sportspeople". Two reasons: one is that these categories are categorized as being by gender, but using the term "women" adds an age component as well and thereby excludes girls. Second, most of the corresponding male categories use "male sportspeople" (I will be renaming those that use "sportsmen"). Auntof6 (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (I can read a bit of Italian, although I don't remember enough to speak/write it.) It's easier and preferable for someone with the filemover right to do this, because the category can be moved without losing its history. Either that, or let the automated process do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. There could be photographs of cymbalists without cymbals, or of cymbalists with cymbals but not playing them. I'm not saying we necessarily need both categories, but they aren't exact duplicates. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I created this category because there seemed to be a hierarchy of “XXX by location” > “XXX by country”. However, I have no strong feeling about its retention. I would point out, though, that it isn’t clear that “Beverages by country” is only for beverages by their place of origin. Wouldn’t a photograph of a caffé latte in Singapore be placed in “Beverages from Singapore”? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–01:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that latte would be placed in “Beverages in Singapore”. Maybe this helps: I am from Germany, so pictures of me should always be placed in "people from Germany". But depending on where I was when the picture was taken, it could simultaneously be placed into "people in Italy" (or even "people from Germany in Italy" if you like this kind of intersection Category *shudder*). "From" is about origin, "in" is about location. Yes, that's confusing, and "beverages by country" could probably contain both kinds. I hope at some point Structured Data will make those "X in Y" categories obsolete by providing simple on-the-fly intersections for any kinds of subjects and locations …
Better do not go that deep into "Beverages by country of origin" ways; Turkey is -probably- the largest Coca-Cola producer in Eurasia and in many countries of the region you drink Coke made in Turkey. Now what? Food of USA, Turkey or Azerbaijan? Let's stick to the place where the bottle is photographed. Or not? --E4024 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's another layer added to the problem. I was thinking "origin" in the sense of where it was invented, which would clearly be the US for Coke. Turkey in this example would be "beverages by country of production", imho. Question is of course: would it be useful to anyone to categorize beverages (or other things) by place of production? Does it matter whether that bottle of coke was produced in Turkey, the US or anyway else? I don't know, but I think we sometimes forget that Commons is not about categorizing things (that's more of a Wikidata kind of thing). Categorization is a tool and should be directed towards making files findable in a structured manner. But for that ambiguous category names like "Beverages by country" are not very helpful … --El Grafo (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current scheme looks more like a library catalogue (like "Germany - People - Historical"), which makes sense, but it's not how commons categories are normally written out (in proper English). I support renaming the tree unless there's some reason for an exception. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no further discussion on this for quite a while, and it would be nice to hear from more people before (possibly) making some very wide-reaching changes. Is there somewhere it would be appropriate to advertise this discussion to others who might wish to express an opinion? Alkari(?), 15 April 2018, 07:52 UTC
For clarity, we are (as I understand it) talking about all the "SVG flags - ..." categories, of which there are well over 500. Should I be adding the CFD header to all of them? Alkari(?), 15 April 2018, 09:01 UTC
Very often, due to its confusing name (although perhaps not for people who adhere to the usual monotheistic religions), I have to remove media of deities from this category which are not of a "God" in a monotheistic religion. The category would be better off being renamed, for instance to Category:God in monotheistic religions. Suggestions are welcome. Takeaway (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia has other naming conventions. Namely, the noun in plural usually redirects to the same noun in singular. On Commons, contrary, categories of things are, as a rule of thumb, in plural. But Taxon categories use Latin names in singular and nominative. Hence, if an experienced Commons editor encounters “Category:Indicator” trying to tag “an indicator” without seeing anything in Category:Indicators at all, it should serve a pretext for alert. An experienced categoriser should not walk away after placing pages into categories having obvious anomalies in naming. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, however, we have many inexperienced users and even bots adding categories. And even experienced users frequently make mistakes when category names are somewhat ambiguous. Note the misplaced files currently in the category: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Moreover, and most importantly, there is absolutely no advantage to having a somewhat ambiguous name like Category:Indicator over Category:Indicator (genus). - Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I simply would have changed this category to a disambiguation page without asking as a disambiguation page states clearly that no files should be in it. Kersti (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the date - the last one to write anything was 23 January 2018. Someone should have closed it and therefore I did it. To put it on the talk page was only for information. In many cases people categorice without looking in the category and therefore it is helpful if the category vanishes bceause if you enter Category:Indicator, the category is not visible in the main category line, this is why indicator is the name of the disambigustion page. --Kersti (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"White Brine Cheese" - capitalized, from Bulgaria. If there is a special "white brine cheese" in Bulgaria, it may have its own cat with its "local" name; a translation into English must not cover similar cheeses from other countries. If not so, that cannot be under "Bulgaria". E4024 (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reform dress is not synonymous with bloomers. There is more than bloomers categorized in the Category:Reform dress. The Category:Reform dress could be synonymous to Category:Reform clothing though. Category:Reform dress could also be renamed to Category:Reform dresses, as subcategory to the Category:Reform clothing. The movement to reform clothes was not the same in every country and every language of Wikipedia. Dress reform and reform clothing is linked to w:Victorian dress reform; de:Reformkleidung; w:Lebensreform and nl:Reformbeweging. Movements of the 19th century that were about health and fashion, lyfestyle, emancipation of women and other subjects. Not all related languages have articles on all of these subjects yet. There also seems to be little uniformity in categorization between the languages and or lack of categorization of articles and files troughout the projects. - Aiko (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This IP-initiated cat sounds a bit subjective to me. Not that I don't care for animals but categorizationwise looks strange. E4024 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This Category and all its contents. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Redundant to a better image. Not used or linked elsewhere. Non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the (amateurish) artist's skills. Self-promotion. (read the accompanying text). Images of poor or mediocre quality. with better examples on the Wiki already. Text reads as if it's publication is part of some sleazy chat up line by the photographer. Comprehensive violation of several guidelines in COM:PS, COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED etc. BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Self promotion of course, but these are as well nice photos that can be used for educational purpose in one or several projects. Actually, this shouldn't be a CfD, but a DR on the photos of the category. BTW, COM:NOTUSED doesn't make any sense in this context. --Ruthven(msg)12:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I listened to the admin's call and DR'ed the worst pic in the cat. I don't know if this is meant to be a deletion discussion but I guess we can also have some weird cats. Anyway, what I don't understand well is that this cat is under Category:Glamour models. I'm not sure if we can keep unidentified models under that cat. When you say "glamour models" the bell rings only about famous models in my mind, like those that stage Victoria's Secret products with wings etc. Maybe I'm wrong about what "glamour" means. --E4024 (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising the DR. I'm curious what these one or more projects are that Ruthven is suggesting? Where can these self-evidently technical failures of images, of a non-noable person be useful? These images are manifestly outside of the scope of the project. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as the images exist in Commons, this category seems appropriate to group the photos of this specific model, even if the model is not a well known model. Category:Glamour models is directly linked to Glamour photography, article that include (or that can include) photo of unknown models. If the photos are of acceptable quality then we can keep the photos, therefore we can keep the category too. Such photo can illustrate article about Glamour photography both in Wikimedia projects or outside IMO. These photos are like Stock photos of acceptable quality, except this one, that's true IMO. Christian Ferrer(talk)17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. Again I quote directly from policy: "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons". Next point ALL the photos here "are of poor or mediocre quality", they are obviously so. Look at this "the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs", these photos are blurred. They would not be accepted as stock photos unless John Lennon took them. Please quit looking at thumbnails and examine them. What are you suggesting? That these photos can illustrate an article about how "not" to take a Glamour photo? Why do you feel as an Administrator you do not need to uphold policy, when you quote it to uploaders every day to justify your deletions and objections on your talk page. The policy says: Anything uploaded here which falls outside this scope COM:PS will be deleted. This is completely obviously the case here. I will be blunt, you cannot be an Administrator and wilfully ignore policy or cherry pick it so suit your own agenda. Your entitled to your opinions sure, but you are not entitled to ignore laid down policy. It is your duty as an administrator to be objective within "policy" guidelines; that is what you signed up for. If I'm wrong, quote me the policy that says so... --BeckenhamBear (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that first the photographs should be nominated for deletion in the appropriate area for doing that. Instead, you have started a discussion in the area for discussing categories. The photos may end up deleted, but as things stand, it's reasonable to have this category to contain them. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the images are low quality and not of a notable person or otherwise of educational value, they should be deleted. That said, I agree with Christian Ferrer's first statement that we should keep the category so long as the images exist (if only to make mass deletion nominations easier). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I emptied it for deletion, because both the cat and the only file in it were under Category:Medicine women. With all the due respect, certain users make many mistakes in creating new cats which result in loss of time in more productive areas. This is not a formal complaint, and less a personal attack. We are all volunteers here and only can do something altogether. I kindly request all users -myself included- to look at the CfDs and if their cats are coming here too frequently try to observe others and develop their cat-making practice. Thanks. This can be closed, IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Category:Fenerbahçe Ülker to "men's basketball" (and not Men's Basketball as we had already agreed :) and made this an RD. The discussion can be closed. (We should never make cat titles with sponsor names because these sports clubs change sponsors more frequently than X changes husbands. :) No, I will not reveal who X is. --E4024 (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I emptied this cat because I wanted to get it deleted. "Vegetarian" and "meatballs" sounded like oxymoron to me. (I hope oxymoron means what I imagined. If not I'm going to be funny trying to show myself knowledgeable. :) Still I brought it here in case anybody wishes to continue using this cat. IMHO we can sacrifice/prescind it. E4024 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is indeed an oxymoron but it seems to be a term that vegetarians themselves use as this Google search shows. It does seem strange to me that vegetarians actually want to be reminded of a meat dish but who am I to disagree? In East and Southeast Asia, there is a whole industry churning out fake meat dishes. Unlike most vegetarian Hindus, many vegetarian Buddhist seem to relish the meat flavour and looks without the meat actually being in there. I guess the same applies to this category of fake meat. More fake meat dishes can be found at Category:Meat substitutes - Takeaway (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I was right in not asking directly the deletion of this cat. Let's keep it with the current population of two files. I will try to cook some vegetable meatballs in the coming days and add the pics inside. Having said that, I'm confused again. Maybe those vegetable balls should go into vegetable patties. In Turkey we have the mercimek köftesi but then maybe that would go into pulse (legume) meatballs cat. BTW we have to create and give an order to Category:Legumes by country. At present while Chile has a cat with only one file (although we might have other files here and there to populate the cat), large legume producer countries, including mine, have no "by country" cats. --E4024 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: Category:Mercimek kofte can definitely go into "Vegetable patties" and not into anything meatballish as it doesn't pretend to be fake meat, or you could create "Category:Vegetable patties made from pulses" (or something like that) as a subcat of "Category:Vegetable patties" and Category:Legume-based food. If you set up a whole category chain up to the main categories for just one country, others might eventually follow if they get around categorising their country's pulse-based patties and legumes in general. ;-) I think these chats should best be held elsewhere than at "Commons:Categories for discussion" though. Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Düden Waterfall has been moved to this name (Category:Düden Waterfalls) by a certain user. The same user has made a cat for waterfalls in the same "city": Category:Waterfalls in Antalya. Of the three waterfalls in this city cat, only this one ends in plural? Why? If "falls" was the correct use, why did they not move the other two "waterfall" cats? I think the mistakes by a certain user are over an acceptable level. They should stop or be stopped. We are not here to always correct the mistakes of the same users who never listen to advice and recommendations. It looks like they have their "own" Commons... E4024 (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's empty because there is no FOP in France, and the building is still subject to copyright restrictions. So it has little or no growth potential, Dan Koehl. That said, images of the building have been uploaded repeatedly over the years. Perhaps it would be better to keep it with {{NoUploads}} and {{NoFoP-France}} templates. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion at the village pump is stated that nothing of Everipedia can be used for commercial purposes. So my conclusion was that this category would be empty as soon as all the images would have been deleted. If that is not that case, than please untag it. Ymnes (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That they state nothing can be used for commercial purposes does not mean it cannot (cf w:Copyfraud). If something is PD or freely licensed, their statement does not change the fact. And as they also say CC-BY-SA-4.0, one should check which statement applies, if using the statement for anything (it seems one cannot trust them regarding attribution or licences, so other factors than their statements have to be used in most cases). --LPfi (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category for hosting non-free content. Microsoft screenshots are copyrighted. All files within this category should be deleted as well. Batreeq (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per similar CFDs, the files should be proposed for deletion first. A long as they exist, it's reasonable to keep the category. When the files are gone, the empty category can be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed volleyball doesn't seem to me to be a cat easy to grow. Therefore having this subcat with only one image may not be necessary. E4024 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Japan, 混合バレーボール is exist. But mainly, Mixed volleyball = recreation (rather than competetion)? --- One case I don't know how much "mixed volleyball photos" there in Commons. I'll try looking for it (as much as possible). --Benzoyl (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection about this. I just don't know if there is a proper English name for these categories, or I should use transliteral name. This category is being used by current upload bot task, so please tell me to move this category. Other categories can be moved safely.--Midleading (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)您好，您可以在维基文库写字间为所有上传计划提出相应的分类名，以后我会采用。——Midleading (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to me to be a nonsense nomination by an editor who appears to have no contributions other than to make this nomination and to "tear up the neighborhood" around this category so as to make the category look useless. I suggest a speedy keep, but I'll give 24 hours for someone to object. - Jmabel ! talk06:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there do appear to be an awful lot of layers with no images in this part of the hierarchy before we eventually get down to some pictures. Does this need to be revisited? - Jmabel ! talk06:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Galleries is often confused with art galleries. Preferably, categories should have unambiguous names. Examples: Category:Volutes (architecture), Category:Capitals (architecture). The text on the category page Galleries is not really helpful because the users usually add a category without reading the category page.
Closed, keep. I think it is clear that this category is fine, and any problem to be solved is with the naming of other categories. Since the nomination rationale was basically nonsense, I see no reason to keep this open longer. - Jmabel ! talk16:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such "class" does/did not exist. Furthermore the Maersk Alabama. formerly named Alva Maersk is one of the last ships in a line of similar container vessels being built until 1998. Jotzet (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I propose this category renamed to Superstructures (dental), or Dental superstructures, or perhaps, Superstructures (orthodontics) -? -- to give way to the Superstructures in engineering such as in w:Superstructure. 2015.ww (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Carnby. A related parent category might also help. I wonder if we could make something equivalent to en:Category:Modern obsolete currencies. - 22:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. All the ancient (traditional) societies had a man or woman taking care of health issues (sometimes mixed with magic) called in some or another way. For example the ancient Turkish peoples had an "otacı" (healer?) which is today a brand of fine herbs ("şifalı otlar" / health-giving herbs) traditionally used for health issues. The Mapuches (indigenous peoples of Argentina and Chile) had (or perhaps still have) "machi"s, generally women. I doubt it was not a universal institution. --E4024 (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: other files have been added to the category, but I still believe it ought to be deleted as it does not provide useful categorization. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant category. It is not a generic name nor a particular string. It is the name of one pub because of local history, which has its own category The Penny Fun, Moor Allerton. Recommend deletion Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Object This is part of a "by name" category. It is the nature of all such categories that some names will be unique. This appears to be the case here but as the category is not for "non-unique" names it should remian. S a g a C i t y (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems relevant to the fictious Null island, since it's used in the wikipedia article. We could make a sub-category called "Weather buoy station 13010" if you think it's important. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone looking (nevermind reading the description) that it's not an island. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current names sound like the categories are about the general meaning of "companies", but they appear to be something else: they are both categorized under religious groups. Besides that, the Tuscany category is categorized under church elements, but the Lombardy category is not. If these are deleted or renamed, their parent category may also need some action. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's religious groups that have historically been called "companies" (in Italian). The word predates its use for commericial groups (like military companies) but I agree that's not common usage now. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This cat would be for paintings in Italy that show cityscapes of any city in the world. The redirect target category would be for paintings located anywhere in the world that show Italian cities. So what to do? If this cat was depopulated before being redirected, we might want to determine whether the removed entries belonged here. If they didn't, then this could be deleted. If they did, we could decide whether to repopulate. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I moved that cat to the same title with small letters. Also did the same with its two sub-cats. The other (match) cats should be decided later, according to the result of the discussion about dates on cats. --E4024 (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:E4024 *smile* In the moment I cannot do it, beside the point that I might not choose the right names (again) and I am not that fit in Commons technics. If you want me to do it it might take some time. --Nicola (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can wait; not one of my priorities. Look, when I came here I could difficultly send an image attached to an e-mail. Now I'm even harassed for working too much for a better Commons. Auf wiedersehen. --E4024 (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Themightyquill says: the ship was renamed from Kaunas to Kaunas Seaways in 2012, which also introduced a different livery. Separate categories for different looks thus make sense. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category and its subcats make absolutely no sense. At least for purposes of our category structure, we should not have overlap in seasons like this. If the intended use was to have files for things happening in winter that are usually associated with spring, then there's certainly a better way to name these categories (if we need them at all). Maybe "new plant growth in winter" or something similar. FYI, this came out of a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Spring 2018. Auntof6 (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the definition of "spring flowers"? If it's winter, they aren't spring flowers. How about just "flowers budding" or something related to the stage they're in? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How ever I have created this category, and Spring in winter can be deleted when all images are removed from it. Spring flowers are plants flowering esp. in spring - I am removing flowers eniierely from this category which are not typically for spring --anro (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop creating new categories to try to address this. I don't think it's helping. Just wait until we get input from others. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a convention to put the name of the city in brackets for churches. But maybe can be omissed here due to state of archaeological site. --DnaX (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it has to be deleted. Almost every day I'm emptying and marking for "speedy" deletion newly-opened cats in the area of Turkey. Maybe it's better to bring them here. It could be that I'm wrong. E4024 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no palaces in Ankara; and the building is not called a "palace" ("Saray" in Turkish). BTW palaces are seen as a concept of pre-Republican times in Turkey and other than "Kültür Sarayı" (Palace of Culture) they are rarely used. (The word "palas" is used for hotels.) E4024 (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessarily created wrong category. Should be deleted. BTW "Turkish Army" is not synonymous with "Turkish Armed Forces". E4024 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The noun form of panoramic is panorama (pl. panoramas). However, panoramic photographs would be suitable if separation of photographs from drawings and videos is intended. --Xeror (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm proposing is a change of scope as well as a change of name for Category:Panoramics; Category:Panoramas already exists for panoramas in general, so there's no need for an additional "Panoramics" category, but there is an obvious use for a "Panoramic photographs" category. Ham II (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support a new order in panoramas and also the new name "panoramic photographs". In the past I have been moving standard pictures - not stiched or otherwise assembled - to other categories which have been filed under panoramics as in some languages "panorama" or its derivatives also means a "nice view". I therefore strongly suggest that in the header of the category there should be a clear description of the type of photographs - stiched ones - which should be filed under this category tree. Simisa (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is still some clarification needed about the definitions and the scope of the Panoramics/Panorama categories. Since they lack category descriptions, one has to look elsewhere for a definition. According to en:Panoramic photography, the defining characteristic is the wide aspect ratio. It's not the fact that the images are stitched together. We have Category:Stitched images for that. There are panoramic cameras that don't require stitching at all, and you can also create a wide aspect ratio by cropping a single photograph. Therefore it's incorrect to place Category:Panoramic photography directly below "Category:Stitched images". Some subcategories of "Category:Stitched images" are already named "Stitched panoramics of ...". This looks like an adequate concept for categorizing the intersection between "stitched images" and "panoramic photographs". Also, why is Category:Landscapes currently a subcategory of Category:Panoramas? --Sitacuisses (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the wide aspect ratio, and the fact that it's of a view, are the defining characteristics of a panorama. Oxforddictionaries.com gives (as meaning #1.1) "A picture or photograph containing a wide view." (Oddly, Merriam-Webster doesn't have a definition that matches this.) So I suggest that our working definition should be "views, of scenery or interiors, with a wide aspect ratio;" the question then is how do we define a wide aspect ratio. Once we've agreed on a definition of "panorama" it should be added to the header of Category:Panoramas.
I agree that "panoramic" is an adjective and not a noun. You have "panoramic photographs" and "panoramas" - both correct. Since this is the English Wikipedia, I think we should use English. Bubba73 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: I would like to add something to consider: A panoramic painting or panoramic drawing might go with "panoramas" or "panoramic views", but not with "panoramic photographs".
If consensus is established and adjusted globally, "panoramas" would be more beneficial (more including) compared to "panoramic photographs". Greets Triplec85 (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: If you meant to do a final closure on this discussion, please do the relevant formatting (with header and footer templates). Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
closed. the new cat tree will be:
panoramas
panoramic photographs
panoramic paintings
panoramic videos
...
most cats currently present will be moved to "panoramic photographs of ...". it will take a long time to finish moving.--RZuo (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the scope of the subcategories here? If it's flowers photographed in the specified season, then the general categories for species need to be removed because their content is not restricted by season and may not even show flowers. If the scope is plants that bloom in the specified season but the photographs may have been taken at other times, or something else, then other content changes may be appropriate. Whatever the case, we need the scope stated in the category descriptions. Auntof6 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a subcategory of Category:Flowers, it should contain pictures of flowers blooming in specified seasons. You are right about the species categories (they were added by different users). Maybe the species categories include subcategories concerning just the flowers, these can be included here. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such subcategories could be included if they are season-specific. There may be plants whose flowering is not limited to one season, especially these days with climate change affecting these things. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would think "Flowers by season of standard blooming" (hopefully worded better) would be a more useful category tree than sorting photos of flowers according to the season the photo was taken. If you're going to sort according to when the photo was taken, sort by month. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, inactive discussion, no consensus to make a specific change. Category used, seems useful to some. (I note that while "by month" is often useful in context, it is not a replacement for seasons as they do not fall in the same months in different hemispheres.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Then read again what’s the subject of this diacussion (n.b.: discussion, not vote): «Maybe to be merged with, and surely to be linked to/from». -- Tuválkin✉✇23:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say a group of high school students visiting a museum in their own city still qualify as tourists. Unless a tram is being used purely to get from point a to point b (like a charter bus) instead of for learning/entertainment, I'd still call it tourism. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, stale discussion without consensus. Seems there is a distinction between this an "Tourist tram services" useful to some in some contexts. "See also" hatnotes now on both categories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File names definitely don't need to be in English. I'm generally in favour of keeping categories with the official name of places in the original language, but I may be outnumbered on this one. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closed, not moved. This is not en:w. While usage is not always consistent with the thousands of named museums categorized on Commons, there seems no prohibition of use of actual local/official names. (Start by looking at names of museums in France, for example.) Redirects from alternative/translated names are often useful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Marcel was known as such by the rangers who guarded his group and the tourists who visited. Not famous, but not nameless either. And 'by' categories can only contain other categories. --Judithcomm (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know all silverbacks in the park are named, most likeley all other adults as well, especially the habituated ones. Humba is one of them (see the pictures in the same category). Keep in mind that there aren't that many mountain gorillas left. --Judithcomm (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- kind of a poor excuse (the editor is more or less saying "i can't be bothered"). there are literally tens of millions of european muslims, with a history going back almost 1500 years. so how is it "complicated" to have a category for them? especially when that category is part of an organised schema of "muslims by geographical region". Lx 121 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lx 121: There may be "tens of millions of european muslims", but I seriously doubt that Commons will have images of them all so that's not really a point in favor of keeping. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep, but change content. If we want "Muslims by continent" categories, they should include the relevant "Muslims from <country>" categories, and few if any individual names. They should probably also be named more like "Muslims from <continent>" , to match the usual naming conventions. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment - i have no problem with that. i didn't start this schema, i was just filling in a missing section of it. :) (also, sorting "by countries" always makes problems for treating with historical changes in geopolitics & borders, & how to apply those to the people being categorised. i'm not saying "don't do it". but i am saying "this is a point of policy & practice that we really need to figure out properly.)Lx 121 (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lx 121, thanks for reminding me that I'm kind of a lazy Commoner. I do recognize that, and would like to have more time (not work, not sleep, not eat, no weekend break) to contribute more to this project. I do my best, especially in the area of categorization, and although I believe I'm doing less than I could, statistics show my contributions are not so bad considering the average of regular users. OTOH, I'm happy my laziness caused or helped you to make an edit after a week's lapse in Commons. OK, let's not personalize things; my further opinions: I appreciate Aunt's input. S/he always comes with good ideas. (I wish I had an aunt like that! :) Take me as voting "Do as User:Auntof6 says"; but as I'm lazy probably I will not be adding those millions of people to this cat. Sorry. --E4024 (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment - i politely & respectfully refer you to the "do not take things personally" part of "working collaboratively, on a wikiproject". i was criticising your opinion. as stated, by you in your proposal. if you think i have summed it up inaccurately, i invite you to make a counter-arguement, on the substance of the points in discussion, in rebuttal. additionally, for you to say "OK, let's not personalize things" -AFTER attacking me, is really pretty disingenuous of you. &, IF you had bothered to look @ my contribution history, you would find that i have been here for MORE THAN 10 YEARS, & that i have made literally TENS OF THOUSANDS OF EDITS, and that i worked EXTENSIVELY in categorisation. the reason that i no longer do so, with all due respect, is that i have had enough of having arguements like this one. have a nice day! ^__^ Lx 121 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no, thank-you -- see my above comments. i've gone "off" spending much time here. it is not worth the stress, & our little exchange has helped to remind me of that. Lx 121 (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who said "i can't be bothered" above? I'm sorry if I disturbed you. I did not attack you and I do not attack anybody. (FYI I have never been blocked here but somehow there is a warning on my TP, which "I" believe is unjust.) Let me go the short way: I get blocked one hour for an unjust attack claim or for any other reason and you get rid of me forever. Now until that moment I will continue to categorize and beg leave. Please let us stop it here. Good-bye. --E4024 (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the two contained categories to more specific "by country" categories. I'm fine with "Muslims by continent" and "Muslims from Europe" but it should definitely contain the pre-existing "Muslims by country" categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK either way: OK deleting because there are only two files and I don't see categories for other continents, or keeping if we populate it with the categories for relevant countries (and, probably, create categories for other continents). -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, plenty of Greek coins (coins with Greek writing and features/themes) exist outside of the standard area of Greece especially when it comes to the ancient world (Magna Graecia, North Africa, Black Sea, Hellenistic Far East, etc). Gts-tg (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill Greek coins shouldn't be a sub of Coins of Greece (just removed it from there, as ancient Greek coins are Greek coins as well, and there are also modern Greek coins of states that weren't Greece such as Ionian islands and the Cretan Republic), but fall under the Greek coins category, if there is any further inconsistency in the current categorization it should be amended. However the way I see the categorization happening, is precisely on a cultural basis rather than the modern country basis, as well as in terms of chronological, geographical, and administrative criteria. Gts-tg (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill just Coins and Greek culture. ideally instead of Coins it should be Coins by culture but the category doesn't exist yet (can be created, and also filled with other categories, i.e. Arabic etc). Gts-tg (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closed. The cfd notice was removed from the category more than 3 years ago. It is now a parent category with subcats "Ancient Greek coins", "Coins of the Byzantine Empire", and "Modern Greek Coins" (the last of which in turn has subcategories which include "Coins of Greece", but also "Coins of Cyprus", etc). Seems resolved. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete This seems a little silly to me. Not to mention that just going through the main category of categories I found 48 different "xx uploaded by Artix Kreiger" categories. I understand creating a category for your own photos that you physically took but this is comparable to the old Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard. --Majora (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it for deletion and was late only a few minutes to prevent this. Please do not open discussions for clear deletion cases. Do as I did. Closed. --E4024 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing most were incorrectly redirected from Category:Alt. Given the disambig page at en:Alt (and the fact that it means old in German, I would suggest that category should be made a disambig page as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does need to go in its current form but I am also communicating with the new user trying to help them understand their mistake. Hopefully they can understand the scope of Commons with this discussion. Its obvious it should be deleted but we shouldn't be quickly pulling the trigger on everything. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are two people with the same name. Whoever knows these people or may read the WP articles, please make some disambiguation. E4024 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same tomb. The first one is in the division 19, and the second one in the division 27. The idea is to have one category per tomb, like what is done for ships or planes. Right now my project on the Père-Lachaise totalises 9239 tombs and +40 000 pictures of the Père-Lachaise. Pyb (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Jan Arkesteijn, your support, as initiator of the cat, is important and enough, as it is not a controversial issue. I will do the needed, plus create a disam page for "Turkish delight". Closing. (The pictures on your user page are very beautiful, BTW. :) Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents: This kind of categorization (black basketball players etc) is not a homage to colour but reminds segregation(ism) to me. (Next step would be muslim sportswomen!) I advocate male-female "discrimination" (separation), especially in sports, because generally they contest in separate gender categories, in real life. But separation based on colour, creed etc is not a correct categorization, IMHO. Is there any Black Basketball Leagues anywhere? If not (I hope so) then there is no need for cats like Category:Black basketball players, something that I see we have here and they do in certain WPs. (When we have that kind of cats it may become unavoidable what we have at hand now.) I hope I don't drag the discussion somewhere else. If my comments are "silly" just ignore me and continue your discussion please. --E4024 (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do categorize people by creed, nationality, culture, and sometimes ancestry, but generally not by pseudoscientific racial categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly the entire content is about parade floats. Therefore the content should be moved to "Category:Parade floats by country" under the already existing "Category:Parade floats". The subcategories should be renamed accordingly. Ies (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming and recategorizing, if contents really are all parade floats. Subcategories would also need renaming. I would also support turning Category:Floats into a disambiguation page. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Other than that, there are several files in these cats grabbed from the net and presented as "own work". Someone who knows how to make collective deletion requests... --E4024 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A subcat of Men with moustaches. For some reason the only occupation which has been given this honour. No other profession has a cat for moustaches. I think we could delete this cat. People also cut their moustaches from time to time. AFAICS we do not have a cat for Politicians with beards, either. Why this one? E4024 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #1: For our purposes, people of a given occupation with moustaches are not meaningfully different from other people with moustaches, so, yes, we probably don't need this one.
Comment #2: Since, as you indicate, moustaches aren't permanent, maybe Category:Men with moustaches should have no subcats for specific people: same for men/people with any other kind of facial hair. The exception might be for women, since it's unexpected for women to have facial hair. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
wearning => wearing? (Presumably not "earning", or "warning", though both conjure more interesting possibilities than the present category.) - Jmabel ! talk17:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost the epitome of a pointless intersection category. Upmerge somewhere, or lose it entirely and take this to the photo level. - Jmabel ! talk17:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no objection to get rid of this cat, I'm removing it from some politicians. (Please do the same with others.) The "men" cat can be added to individual files. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I made the above joke about women ("female politicians") because "Politicians" should not be a subcat of "Men". FYI. --E4024 (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You already moved it to the correct name. If you don't want to leave it as a redirect, you can put the {{Category renamed}} template on it, with a parameter of the new name, and it will get deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The images in the cat are not towers; but rather high-rise buildings. I guess there are clock towers, church towers etc in Lima too. E4024 (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are other categories with this issue. Sometimes the reason a building is in a tower category seems to be only that its name has the word "tower" in it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you (cat initiator) used the Turkish word, it is "şadırvan" and not "şadirvan". If you wanted to avoid the letter "ı" then you should also avoid the letter "ş". Maybe there is an English word or transcription for this. BTW this discussion is intended also for the subcats. E4024 (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The cat has grown with a File:Spell Presidents name.jpg in two-and-a-half months. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with these armed people. Indeed if I had the habit of looking into cat histories, I would not have opened this cat to discussion because just like other colleagues in Commons might also be doing so, I avoid interaction with certain users; and I would not like to send messages to their talk pages, even if they were automated notifications. I believe we do not need this cat and that it should be deleted; other than that I have nothing else to add to this CfD regrettably opened by me. --E4024 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because categories are for grouping related images together, not for a single image? The image surely could have been added to other existing categories rather than constructing a new one just for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the actual policy is pretty clear in it’s first sentence: A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media. Also it just seems like common sense that acategory is for grouping related items, whatever is going on on that other category you mention. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I probably also should have mentioned that the sole image in this category was a likely copyright violation, and as such has now been deleted, so there really is no purpose to this category regardless of whether the initial creation was appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the proposer meant by "meaningmeredith" but this category name is certainly confusing at first glace. @Evrik: Can you explain what it's for? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the disambiguation pages make the content we have more accessible. Especially if it's linked to the corresponding wikipedia categories, as all of these are. I say close this now. Don't Let a spurious nomination grow into something it shouldn't be. Evrik (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even as a technician I was unsure of the topic of this category. Even though bad capacitors are a common problem it is a faily useless caegory. If we keep it a better name would be "Circuit boards with reeplaced capacitors" but that is still a bit clunky. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. "Circuit boards with replaced capacitors" would also describe it. The electrolytic capacitor cure is a refurbishment having the device a second life. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk)06:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New cat. Commons is already full of this. Adding unnecessary "photographs" cats is "destructive". Remember me when they outlaw Commons in respected circles. E4024 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A cat with only one file, and subcat of "Category:People of European descent" and Category:Racism. I would delete it. and add the only file in it to the latter cat. C'est fini. E4024 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different things: the media (graffiti) and the topic (anti white). The 2 categories are useful. --Civa (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This category gathers completely different angles that are however expressed with the number 10 (10°, 10%, 10 rad, 10ᴳ et c.). It provides a much needed intermediate nesting level between Category:10 (number) and each of its child cats, preventing its excessive clogging. Similar categories should be created for any number n for which exists, at least, bothCategory:n% (angle) and Category:n° (angle). -- Tuválkin✉✇16:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A category for every sequence of characters used to denote something in various notation systems? My proposal is then Category: puta as word to gather completely different things:
No, something like Category:Foobar as word, regardless of its possible merits, has nothing to do with the matter at hand. -- Tuválkin✉✇00:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, this argument is not essentially different from mine. When/if such subcats come into being it will be indeed time for Category:2 as time. -- Tuválkin✉✇00:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: While I personally do not object a redirect, there is no obvious benefit for one. P.S. The redirect was added after I nominated it for discussion. --Xeror (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This category doesn't provide an additional value. Compare also to universities where usually the induvidals are categoriesed to the university and not vis versa. Sanandros (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks more like a draft article. The only pic in it shows the way for categorization. We could probably prescind this cat. E4024 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I found a pdf from local gov. Bud. district VI. and it said about monument buildings. But the corner buildings are gave with the other street name like Russ. emb. gave Bajza utca 35? its ok if I put there pics after take simply to Andrássy Avenue as here 'Category:Bajza utca, 35 (Budapest)' - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The formal title of the event remains in German, but "art action at 2017 G20 Hamburg summit" gives English speakers a pretty good idea of what it's about. I don't see the problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A category "Category:Insects on unidentified plants" doesn't help to identify the plants like Category:Unidentified plants in Germany does because literature for identfying plants is often locality-centered. The only effect is that identificable plants are not identified as one doesn't see them. It is not useless to identify them, because longer articles need pictures about ecological relationships of plants and animals showing if the plant is wind polliated or insect pollinated, if birds, bees or lepidoptera pollinate the plant. - Kersti (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, the insects are identified or are already in "unidentified insects" categories. Upmerge it in "Unidentified plants" or its subcategories. For birds the same, yes. "Insects on plants" is usually not needed, as they are already in subcategories of it. Anyway this category itself is not very interesting. Subcategories for a single plant or animal species are interesting as the pollinators and the parasites of the plants are visible there. It is a category type which schould show ecological realtionships between plants and animals. --Kersti (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t understand what exactly the objections to this category are. Perhaps you could explain more fully.
Addressing the concerns as presented.
”The category doesn't help to identify the plants like Category:Unidentified plants in Germany does because literature for identfying plants is often locality-Cenered.” The category “Unidentified plants” has numerous sub-categories that are not locality centered. For example, Unidentified Trees or Unidentifed Plants (herbarium specimens). This category is no different. There are more ways to categorise images than by location, and more ways to assist in identification than by location.
”The only effect is that identificable plants are not identified as one doesn't see them.”
I don’t inderstand this at all. This is a subcategory of unidentifed plants. The images within are just as visibale to editors as the images in unidentified angiosperms or any other subcategory. If this category didn’t exist then the images would simply be moved to some other subcategory. How would that make them any more visible?
”It is not useless to identify them, because longer articles need pictures about ecological relationships of plants and animals showing if the plant is wind polliated or insect pollinated, if birds, bees or lepidoptera pollinate the plant.”
This is precisely the reason why the category exists: so that editors who need pictures about ecological relationships can readily find pictures of animals on plants even when the plant hasn’t been identifed yet. If this category is removed, 99% of the images it contains will simlpy be moved to the category Unidentied angiosperms. How can that possibly make it easier for someone needing an image of a wasp on a plant, to find such an image.
Three reasons have been given for deleting this category. The objection that the category is useless because it doesn’t narrow down the geographic range makes no sense when numerous other subcategories also have no geographic component. Subcategories exist in order to make images easier to find, not to sort them by location. The objection that it makes it impossible to identify the images makes no sense: images are just as identifiable in a subcategory as the parent. By this argument the images should be in Unidentifed objects. The argument that transferring the images from Insects on unidentied plants to [unidentied angiosperms]] will make it easier for editors to find images to illustrate ecological relationships between insects and plants makes no sense at all to me. It seems obvious to me that if an editor wants an image of an insect on a plant, it will be easier to find in a category called Insects on unidentied planst that only contains images of insects on plants, than in a category called unidentified angiosperms where 99% of images do not include insects at all.
If we are going to start deleting any categories that don’t help users identify the subject by narrrowing down the possibilities, then it seems we will need to delete categories usch as “microscopic images of unidentified plants”, “unidentified botanical illustrations”, “unidentified animal fossils” and so forth. None of those categories narrow down the possibilities in any way at all. While we don’t have a category “Unidentified plants in blue pots”, we do have a category “Unidentified pot plants”. While we don’t have a category “Unidentified insects in the afternoon”, we do have a categories “leaves by season”, “Forests of [country] by season” and so forth.
Is there any actual policy that says that sub categories should be created in ways that help users by narrowing down the possibilities? I can’t find anything suggesting that. Cathegories exist to help people find madia that they want to use. Just because an image is of an insect on an unidentified plant, that doesn’t mean that it is useless to someone who wants an image of an insect on a plant. If the image is in the category “insects on unidentified plants”, that should make it easier to find for someone looking for images of insects on plants. I can not see how placing the image into the “unidentified angiosperms” category can possibly mkae it easier for someone looking for images of insects on plants to find the image. We could move the images to both “unidentifed angiosperms” and “insects with plants”, but I can’t see how that provides any advantages to identification of the plant or any assistance in helping people looking for images. All it means is that users will be unable to tell whether the plants the insects are on have been identified or not without opening the file and reading the desciption. How does that benefit anyone? Mark Marathon (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Marathon: “microscopic images of unidentified plants” helps finding the correct plant, as you need completely different kinds of knowledge to identify a microscopic image than you need to identify a photo of a whole plant - different people would do these two kinds of work, “unidentified animal fossils” encopass a different set of possible plant species, as many extinct plants are includet here. “unidentified botanical illustrations” usually are identified with an outdated scientific name, which is findable via Google, this is a different kind of knowledge and a differend search strategy. Kersti (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Marathon: There are two people arguing against you. You didn't answer to the last two posting, in which I explained, that in fact all existing categories within the unidentified organinsm category tree are useful to help identifying plants, only this (Category:Insects on unidentified plants) category does just the opposite and hinders this work. As you didn't answer for more than one month I understood this as a consens pro my position. If you don't think this way you should explain why this catory helps identifying plants or in some days I will start again with this work - and stop putting plants in until a decision is made!
While I started to empty the category, I noticed that with this category, it is even worse than I thougt before I startet this.
Not only that many people throw lots of pictures in it an no one - exept me - tries to empty it by identifying the plants to family level. Additionally even the plants which are identified and categoriced to species level were in at least ten cases still in the category, and hundrets examples identified to family level were still in it as well. Therefore the ones that I could identify on the first view in most cases are plants, where this category simply should be deleted. In the other cases I only could identify the ones from Europe, because I only there have the books to verify that there's no similar plant wich could be the fotographed plant as well.
You didn't say this but I think to you this is simply the category for pictures you don't want to identify. In fact the main problem is, that the cateory is used for this purpose by more than one, with the result that the category is cluttered with rubbish in a way that no one could work on it in a useful way. As I think that these pictures would be really useful to illustrate ecological relationsships between plants and animals I think it would be of much help to identify animal and plant to species level. I tried it again an again and this category hinders me in doing so!
Not the place to discuss it. Propose the files in there individually or collectively for deletion. If and when the cat is empty it will be deleted without discussion. --E4024 (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the nomination. Category:Prepared foods by main ingredient was mistakenly added to Category:Dishes by Benoît Violier for precisely one minute before it was removed. It was no longer in that category when you made this nomiation, E4024. ::Fractaler, your concern is the same as the one you've raised at the Village Pump, and it's far greater than this particular discussion. Let's leave it there.
I think a name of a category should tell directly which content one would find in a category. "Other diseases of" tells nothing about the content. Diseases with no special features related to the category name should be in the main category. Of course systems like ICD 10 have always a section "Other diseases of" but the content of it is exactly what in Commons usually is left in the main category. Commons doesn't work like a book in which each item is exactly in one part of the book, and the not sortable rest gets its own headline. In commons the not sortable rest is left in the main category. Kersti (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely see the problem. Commons doesn't use "Other X" categories, but puts unspecified contents in the base category. So anything that might go in Category:Other diseases of the digestive system would just go in Category:Diseases and disorders of the digestive system. On the other hand, as the template clearly indicates, the category "reflects the organization of International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision." So what do we do when that categorization scheme doesn't match with the commons categorization scheme? - Themightyquill (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simply state in the ICD 10 description template that the "Other diseases of the digestive system" are left in the main category. We have the category nahmes used in ICD 10, but we don't sort illnesses in the same way as ICD 10 does. If in ICD 10 a illness may fit in three categories it is put in the most relevant category of ICD 10. We put it in all of these categories. So we use ICD 10 as a starting point for searching a illness for medical professionals, as every one knows it, but we have a categorisation sheme which works in fact in a completely different way. --Kersti (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:Ashik, Category:Aşıqlar and Category:Azerbaijani ashiqs. All three (and some subcats of the last one) use different wording. Partly for using a Turkish word where probably no English equivalent exists, and partly for typical Caucasian wars. I may have contributed to the confusion but also to clean up. Looking from my own perspective, this is about "Aşıklar" (in Turkish) for which/whom we also use "Halk ozanları" or "Saz şairleri", again "in Turkish". This defines a category of musician-poets who "sing" their own "poems", while playing the "saz". I think these cats may better be organized if Turks, Armenians, and Azeris stay out of the job. Work a bit, neutral people, for God's sake... :) E4024 (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a bold initiative here to move this to Saz poets to prevent stupidities involved. (I'm referring to the current situation in which our cats are.) --E4024 (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! We've just uploaded 1000+ more images to this category now, they are from the same collection at British Library however this batch covers more than "British" East Africa. Therefore we would like to change this category to "War Office Archive - East Africa". Can this be done, and also, in such a way as to not break any links to the old name (see: https://www.bl.uk/collection-guides/war-office-archive)? Ndalyrose (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks!! The images seem to still be sitting under the old category as of 29 March, 2018, please do let me know if I need to do anything on my end to re-categorise them, otherwise will just wait and see! Cheers! --Ndalyrose (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! Why did you categorize it as Czechia? Is it Czechia or Czech Republic? Got other pics to populate the cat? (I had taken a few when I visited Prague -beautiful city- but before that month...) 'cause making "two" cats for just one file is... Not the best option. --E4024 (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @E4024 After doing a bit of searching around Czech categorys it appears that Czechia seems to be used when categorising all thing Czech! Kolforn (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. Cat was renamed to specify "Czech Republic" as part of standardizing naming for the country's photograph categories: we were getting duplicates dates due to some using one country name and others using the other country name. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
To be honest, I had uploaded from a bad stream. Most of the photos are of copyrighted material.
For the US ones, a lot of the copyrights were created at a time where copyrights lasted 28 years after production. With auto ads, relevance stops after a few years, and becomes, for the most part, useless. The non-US ones are still in copyright. Artix Kreiger (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a useful cat, I am going through lots of old catalogs with early truck ads that are in the public domain. I'd like to keep truck ads separate from automobile ads. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGtal: Maybe, but the sub-categories would need to be sorted out first. It might also make sense to keep this as a category as a catchall for both "by source" and "by destination" languages. It might also make sense to have the following
It makes complete sense and that is more or less the way it is categorized in Wikipedia, though I think we can forgo "Category:Translators by language" and put "Category:Translators by destination language" and "Category:Translators by source language" under translators. This should be the tree:
I support User:DGtal's latest proposal, but I would like to seek some clarification. Using English and French as examples, is this the new structure you propose?
Category:y-x translators (option #1: English to French translators. #2: English language-French language translators. #3: English language to French language translators. #4: English-French translators. Note that #4 could be interpreted as a French national of English descent doing a job of translator, so I dont think it works. I prefer #1.)
Like in other mother cats, we strangely have "Channels of, in, or from" in national subcats. We must find a way to prevent this disorder. E4024 (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think of vs from matters too much, but "in" doesn't work well, since a country might have access to a television station from a neighbouring country - which makes a less useful categorization. I'm going to suggest moving everything to "of X" - Themightyquill (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categories like Category:Television channels of New Zealand might seem fine on the face of it, but then it gets kind of crappy when you have categories like "Logos of television channels of New Zealand." Since "X of Y of Z" just doesn't sound right. Especially compared to "X of Y in Z." It shouldn't matter that a television station can be picked outside of the main or intended audiences viewing area either. Especially these days when everything is global and there's online TV streaming. Or nothing should be categorized as being "in" anywhere. If there's a French TV channel, in the French language, where 99% of its audience is in France, and most of the rest world doesn't know about or watch it then there should zero issue with saying its in France. As its factually correct and the naming of categorizes shouldn't have to account for every niche audience or edge use case. Its not like things can't be put in multiple country categorize either. Adamant1 (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to cities. On "x of y from z", I don't have a problem with that. Except from my experience in general there are way more categories that are of the "X of Y in Z" or "x of y of z" variety and it's usually better to go with the more established way of naming things. Also, to me "from" makes more sense for organic, none stationary things like people or animals. You don't general say a building or company is from somewhere though. Which is ultimately what a TV station is. Since it implies the is somewhere else then where it originates at the time or has a location based affiliation, like a nationality. You don't really say they are "of" somewhere either though. "Walmart is a company based of America" or "Carnegie Hall is of New York" just sounds ass-nine. It works fine for groups of people or things that took place during certain time period though. Like "So and so of the Waldon family" or "The war of 1812."
To me, generally the naming of categories should follow proper, "normal" English usage. No one says "What television channels are there of this town" when they visit a place. If something sounds clunky or incorrect in a normal sentence there's zero reason it wouldn't also sound the same as a category name. Let alone should the normal rules of grammar be tossed out just "because categories." --Adamant1 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer "in." It makes the most sense, follows convention, and I haven't heard a counter argument as to why it doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many countries (like this one) use "Category:Martial arts of" while others use "Category:Martial arts in". The latter one looks much better, as there are very few countries which can claim to "own" (be the place of origin) of some martial art. E4024 (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Every category under Category:Martial arts by country should follow the same naming scheme, and I think "in" indeed would be a better option (for every country). If categorisation by the originating country is needed, maybe there could be something like "Category:Martial arts originating from X" in addition to "Category:Martial arts in X". BR, ––Apalsolat • c10:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Someone" began to make the changes; but people like the Thais have their own Muay etc. I am not going to enter that area that I don't know. Takeaway? Help us. --E4024 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about these things: Training (in the traffic?), education (at classrooms?) etc. Therefore simply do as you deem correct. Keep, change, move merge. I will look and learn. --E4024 (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
otherwise, i support Commons users who use Firefox, and moving the whole cat tree to Commons users who use xyz. RZuo (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Estopedist1: i feel that the parent category, if moved to "Commons users by technology", might sound a bit strange or imprecise. i'm thinking "Commons users by use of technology" might be a little better? do you have suggestions?--RZuo (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Different country cats use "in", "of" or "from". Certainly this is not the cat to discuss; but I thought it was more practical to look at this issue from this general angle. I think "of" could be the best, but for me "standardization" is more important. Therefore of, in or from but all should be the same. E4024 (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it is not the right way to discuss it. This this the way to discuss the title of the category Rock music by country, not of the categories inside. You had to use the category talk instead.--Pierpao.lo (listening)09:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I do not like "of". If we have, for instance, a picture of Springsteen singing in italy what is: Rock of Italy of Rock of USA? I prefer to split, to use both in and from. So in this case: Rock in italy and Rock from the USA.--Pierpao.lo (listening)09:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In" should refer to where it was performed, no matter the origin of the performer(s). "Of" and "from" seem more like the same thing. It would be good to have separate parent categories for those. The parent category, Category:Music by country, appears to use "of", so maybe that's the way to go. And if Bruce Springsteen composes something while he's in Germany, is that from the US because the creator is American, or from Germany because that's where it was written? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I propose to delete this kind of "regional" cats. Sorry, but people tend to add their national (country) cats to individual cats or files and this causes insistent categorization mistakes. I lose too much time to correct other people's mistakes. If we have people from this or that country more active in Commons, then suddenly a plate that belongs to or made and photographed in X country appears in the cat for Z country's cuisine and a "regional" file. What is the sin of those countries (cuisines) who do not have editors here? Let's only categorize based on which plate is done where. For example: "Lebanese cuisine". "Lebanese cuisine in Germany" etc. My 2 cents. E4024 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This category seems to be a mix of categories for individual streets and categories for multiple streets with the same name. I guess that's OK, as long as it isn't defined as a metacategory. However, don't the subcategory names need to be standardized? Most of the names look like "Foo street in Donetsk" ("street" is lower-case and singular, and the word "in" is used). Some have names like "Foo Street (Donetsk)". Categories for individual streets usually have names like "Foo Street, Place" (upper-case "Street", no "in", with a comma separating the street name from its location). Categories for multiple streets with the same name usually have names like "Foo streets in Place" (using the word "in", and I've seen it with both upper and lower case "street"). Is there any objection to standardizing the names along those lines? I would have just done it, but there are quite a few of them. Auntof6 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't multiple streets with the same name. I create subcategories for parts of single street in different districts of city for better caterorisation by district. I can rename them if you wish. "Foo Street, Place" - is this variant used on Commons? "Foo Street, Place (part in Bar district)" - is this OK? --Butko (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, thanks for the explanation. The naming you suggest would be fine, but you might want to wait to see if other people think a rename is even needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks vague and -worse- subjective for a cat name. Shall we add the Pope here? Thousands of politicians? Or myself? E4024 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term "locality" is used for entities that do not qualify as metropolitan areas, cities, towns or villages, and these localities are not necessarily populated like hamlets, but could be just unpopulated named places without human settlement.
Note that OSM uses the term "locality" for this purpose, they are always dependencies falling within the boundaries of a larger populated place (metropole, city, town or village) which has some kind of dedicated administration. The term "locality" does not cover suburbs, townships, urban districts/subdistricts, quarters, neighborhoods of cities/towns/villages (we have subcategories for these intr-urban divisions). But localities generally include the populated "hamlets" that are too small to have a local dedicated adminstration and depend from another separate urbanized city/town/village.
@Verdy p: Based on the content of this category tree, I had assumed it meant sub-city/town/village areas, but you're saying it does not cover suburbs, quarters or neighbourhoods? Because unless I've missed something, that's pretty much all that's here, as well as hamlets (regardless of any connection to a village or city). If we use your definition, this category tree would be largely empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically this matches everything that has not adminsitrating body below the smallest local administrative level. It may contain non-governing bodies (such as consultative bodies, or coucils whose membership is not required or implied by residents), so on some areas, yes, it includes also some suburbs or neighborhoods within towns/cities/villages. Basiucally the other city/town/villages are used for settlements governed at "municipal" level. But the term "municipal" may be ambiguous as some countries have several kind of local governments, distinguishing municipalities, municipalides, town syndicates, resident councils, several kinds of "panchayats" in India, townships in South Africa... It's not simple to choose an appropriate term ! verdy_p (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Localities can be themselves populated places. Hamlets are populated places. I think that "Localities of municipalities" is in fact better (if we ignore the various distinctive statuses for municipalities, which sometimes are grouped to form a single "town" or "city", or can be isolately their own city/town/village; most metropolis are large cities grouping in fact multiple municipalities which have their own adminsitration and not necessarily linked together when a metropolis is international across borders, but I will ignore for now these special cases where adhoc specific structures exist specifically for most of them with a complex internal organization anc complex forms of cooperations with other local or regional administrations or specific treatment at national level when these metropolis are important capitals).
We are in fact trying to reconciliate two different types of territorial classifications: the administrative map, and the urbanization map. They match or or less superficially but with very frequent exceptions almost everywhere. If we just consider "city/town/village" this is in fact part of the urbanization map (based on resident population); but administrative units do not follow the scheme exactly as territories have evolved over time, population has moved and urbanization (or desertification) has changed radically how the former administrative units were governing themselves or with cooperations, until some of them decided to split or merge, or a major territorial reform occured. Some entities which were plain municipal units are not longer operating at this level, but are still famous and preserved in culture and by inhabitants (e.g. the former communes in Belgium or Greece before their merging are now "sections" or districts within a larger unit operating at municipal level, but the reality on ground still shows distinctive units of population that stil lhave thier preserved history and keep their distinctive name.
"What is a city?" This is the good question to ask: does it match what people think and perceive, or does it have to be only the current administrative unit (when it is know that adminitration and territorial reforms are very unstable, subject to changes in politics). Then try defining what are the effective boundaries for Paris, London, New York City, Los Angeles, Athens or Moscow: it's impossible and has varied a lot over time. Same question about Hong Kong, Singapore, Lagos, Cairo, Mexico City, or Mumbai, whose urban develomements have largely escaped their initial limits and are likely to have deep territorial reforms taken against their neighbours (which will loose their local autonomy by more centralization in a larger structure). verdy_p (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think moving to Category:Localities of municipalities will prove problematic when you try to apply it to places that aren't categorized as muncipalities (for various local reasons). Too bad, because I quite like the rhyme. The fact that localities are also populated places isn't necessarily a problem. A neighbourhood can be a sub-division of a populated places, but it is also a populated place. We don't need the perfect solution, but I'd like to find something that describes the contents more accurately than the current "cities and villages" and which fits within the existing category trees. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a consensus to rename the current category. Since the term "populated places" could also refer to the subdivisions of populated places ad infinitum, I've renamed theis and the subcategories to "Localities of municipalities". --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This name is not good. There are two weapons whose Mandarin names are romanised as Jian: en:Jian (劍, basically a sword), and zh:鐧, a kind of stick/baton/mace. The sword cat is ofc Jian (sword) just like dao (sword), but I dont know what is the offical/dictionary-approved name for the mace-like Jian.--Roy17 (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not wrong categorization but the historic term the sefardi jews (mainly jews that lived in the present territories of Portugal and Spain) used to refer to the Iberian Peninsula, before the late XV-early XVI century with the forced expulsion\conversion of jews and muslims an all that followed, in the case of the jews, centuries of pogroms, forcible conversions, "limpieza de sangre", "conviersos"\"cristãos-novos", crypto-jews\"marranos", and used in present day to refer to Spain. Tm (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I know I sometimes open many cats for discussion. This is why I'm trying to stop myself these days on this area, but it's like an addiction: Can someone please explain me what is the sense in having this cat and its two children? There are also similars on tennis. I think we could reduce the number of all these cats and subcats which would make it easier to find younger people running after a ball. OTOH "football ball boys" is too difficult to pronounce; reminds me of balls (or people) "associated with association" football. E4024 (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for any discussion. As soon as such a (maintenance-)category is empty / has been emptied, just insert {{Speedydelete|1=Category is empty}} and the category will be deleted usually within a few hours. --Archie02 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The category description addresses this: "Gérôme painted six slave-market scenes set in either ancient Rome or 19th-century Istanbul. The subject provided him with an opportunity to depict facial expressions and to undertake figurative studies of sensual beauty. He painted another view of the same event--Slave Market in Rome (St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum)--in which the viewer looks over the heads of the spectators towards the slave." - Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This category name is highly confusing in that the word commonly meaning royalty. This should be disambiguated and it contains a lot of incorrect images. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know my English sucks but still believe this cat title should be changed (corrected). It could at least use a hyphen. E4024 (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another wrong categorization with unnecessary capitalization. I will move the files to their correct cats and get this deleted. E4024 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Old books about medicine" is not the same as (all) "Books about medicine". The cat for antiquated books should be a sub-cat of all books. Books by year is nice if you know the year, but not when you don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cat includes things that aren't books, but other than that, I've no particular objection. We should have at least a guess at a century for nearly everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category that shouldn't have content (force categorization superseeded by template auto-categorization that would not add any media here) IJReid (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have just realized that the criterion SD-G1 is applicable in this situation, so this discussion can be closed and I will add the Speedy-Delete tag instead. IJReid (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, most of the categories in Category:Tram transport in Switzerland by city are inaccurate, because the tram networks always goes far away out of the city, in the corresponding Swiss cantons. And sometimes further e.g. in France (Basel, soon also in Geneva). OR, do we expect the name of the city means "tramway network centered in the city of xxx"? On another side, we have already some categories aligned on the cantons, e.g. Category:Transport in Switzerland by canton. -- MHM (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’d say that yes, we do «expect the name of the city means "tramway network centered in the city of xxx"», at least in most applicable cases. (Some exceptions: Category:Coastal tram, Belgium, Category:Trams in Upper Silesian urban area, et&nbs;c.) Of course, specific implementations should be informed by local specificities. I don’t know the CH situation well, but it stands to reason that while considering Geneve-city and Geneve-canton to be the same in practical terms, larger cantons such as Bern or Zürich might not gain from that same treatment. -- Tuválkin✉✇17:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember, but when I created the category last year, I was only aware of a mountain of that name in Azad Kashmir Pakistan. However, there is little information about that mountain...
Guess we should move the category to Category:Hari Parbat, Shounter Valley and put all those mountain pictures there and have all other at "..., Srinagar".
Ok, I moved it to Category:Hari Parbat, AJK. AJK is the official abbreviation for the Pakistan Region Azad Kashmir. en:Hari Parbat covers the "mountain" (or hill) in Srinagar, India, with the temples and stuff on it. All other interwikis refer to this one, too. I had to edit it on wikidata by hand...
@Rupert Pupkin: I'm not a huge fan of acronyms in category names, but whatever. To create a disambiguation page, just type out the different options and add {{Disambig}} to the bottom, as I've done at Category:Hari Parbat.
A colleague of ours insists in opening cats with wrong capitalization. I could move it; but I believe it's better to discuss it here, that may help them to stop doing this. E4024 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that these are wrongly capitalized. The first word in each cat name is capitalized, as are any proper nouns. Everything else is all lower case. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion needed. Moved to Category:Ancient Egyptian beer industry. @E4024: Nominating categories that are obviously mispelled or with incorrect grammar for discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Please make the changes, or, if you are unsure, simply ask someone to double check. Rather than assuming that someone "insists" on doing something wrong, please assume good faith. A wise person recently said, "sometimes please consider people ... who have learned English in school or language courses please." - Themightyquill (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I asked why you think the items in the Category:Films about former Muslims "[do] not include what we call "films"". The items that are currently in the category all refer to documentary films. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
E4024 You'll need to provide an answer if you actually want yor deletion request to be acted upon. If you don't really expect it to be deleted, you are wasting everyone's time. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nederlandse Leeuw, you don't have to thank me for (your) opening of Category:Films about religion and for adding (again, yourself) Category:Christmas films in there. Now we have two cats for films about religion, one, a classical, a must: "Christmas films", two "Films about former Muslims"... Former Muslims? Buddy, this is an oxymoron (something not related to oxen nor Moron Air Base, not even to the moron that writes these words :) but to the fact that former members of a religion are not any more members of that religion. Anyhow, indeed Christmas films are also generally not about Christians, but Jews and "former Jews", except the Roman Governor and his reckless infidel soldiers. (Well, of course there were no Christmas films back then, either. I watched a lot of these films and learned a few things.) In the end we cannot even say that Christ was a Christian, right? He "died" (sort of; sorry, believers) without knowing that he established a religion under the name Christianity. I'm trying to attract the attention to the fact that if we are so concerned about former... people, other people could think we have an agenda or something. Imagine, the only films about religion cat in Commons was about "former" Muslims until I opened another stupid CfD! Let's see how I will save face from this grave mistake of mine: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? Help! --E4024 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of that seems to be relevant to this CfD. I'm going to close unless you can explain your argument, preferably without further digressions, or "jokes". - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This category contained photos of artwork deleted because of no-Fop in France. It is now empty. It is to be deleted. Civa (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The one and only file there is under protection since many years (2010). I don't know if that may have helped the confusion (mine). --E4024 (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's just different transliterations of same name (Евгений == Eugene). Sure, only one category should left, but are there any agreement about Russian-to-English transliteration? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the majority of files are under "Yevgeny", I will boldly take the only file here to that cat and make this an RD; later Russian-speakers may discuss to find the best name. I entered here only to correct an anomaly, please discuss it without me if necessary. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was almost no participation at the CfD. Therefore I'm closing it as Done as I made it an RD. We can always change things if others disagree with me. --E4024 (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Highly limited, mostly if not entirely indirect contact. Tibet also had contact with Europe during the Renaissance and France had contact with China during the Ming Dynasty. That doesn't make it appropriate. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two illustrations in a book from Jehan de Mandeville, as well as two others in the Livre des merveilles. They are reproduced in Michael Taylor Le Tibet de Marco Polo à Alexandra-David-Néel, translation: Annie Saumont, Office du Livre, Fribourg / Payot, Paris 1985. German : (Mythos Tibet, translation: Karin Brown, Georg Westermann Verlag, Braunschweig 1988). For the book of Marco Polo, there is an illustration at "CHAPITRE XXXVI" here: [6] --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So as far as you know, the maximum potential for images in this category (as you define it) is likely 4? And none of these four images are currently here? I'm afraid this is a very weak argument to keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I do agree that the initial name "Middle Ages in Tibet" can not be kept. I know of 5 images of "Tibet during the Middle Ages". Do you agree that this later expression is appropriated for these 5 images ? If not, what expression would you suggest? What about "Tibet in medieval art" ? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyg728: You said "Image quality is low and blurry" but you have nominated a category for discussion, not an image for deletion. Was this an accident? Not all the images in this category of of poor quality. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A google search suggests fairly similar numbers for either transliteration, though slightly higher numbers (239:180) for a Valera Pesin from Belarus. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Сам художник позиционирует себя именно как Валеру, а не Валерия. Посмотрите его галерею на фэйсбуке, она называется Valera Pesin gallery. The artist himself positions himself exactly as Valera, and not Valery. Look at his gallery on facebook, it's called Valera Pesin gallery. --Tatiana Markina 07:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
All the other national "waiters" cats are made with "from", I don't know why. Indeed if you go to any country which receives many tourists, you see that generally the waiters are not from that country, but from countries that give youth emigration to those countries. For instance, in Spain many waiters are either from Latin America or from Romania; in Turkey, every passing day we have more waiters from Central Asian countries, at present they generally work as "komi" - assistant to the "real" waiter- but soon will become professional waiters. I believe "waiters in" could be better than "of" or "from"; hoping that no-one will come to ask me what will happen with a Spanish waiter who has gone to Morocco for vacations... E4024 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody tell me how this cat is categorized? Because cyberwarfare is not per se esnionage as there exits also destructiv cyberwarfare technology. Sanandros (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I'd like to oriantate on the de wep de:Cyberkrieg as usually in de wp the categorization is done with more care as on en wp. But in this case I'm also not so much agreeing with the de wp categorization. So I'd suggest Category:Warfare by type and Category:Internet. But I think we have currently here also a lot of overcat but unfortunately I can't create a tree with vcat right now.--Sanandros (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Firstly, from what I see, the Napoleonic Wars only lasted from 1803 to 1815 (though I'm no expert). Second, these aren't clearly images of campaigns either. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While waiters are "from" in national cats, waitresses are "of". Sorry, I cannot bring every individual country cat here. E4024 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this cat is necessary, with the single and irrelevant file in it, therefore propose its deletion. (In case we have better files to add into this cat, then we should do it.) E4024 (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I can't imagine there would be much additional content to add in the future. "Foreign policy" doesn't have so many photo
For that matter, what's a wall basement, as indicated in the description of the only file here? Maybe it's supposed to mean the base of the wall? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rename the cat and make this page a disambiguation page. I suppose we should verify that the things currently on this page are for the Tasmanian place. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support But should be the 2nd choice "Port Arthur, Tasmania" as there is also w:Port Arthur, South Australia and per w:WP:NCAUST. While this is a significant heritage site, it only has a population of 251, compared to 53,818 for Port Arthur, Texas and 324,773 for the Lüshunkou District. Also the one in Texas has slightly more images that the one in Tasmania. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with not having both and with picking "North America". We probably shouldn't have any categories referring to a geographic "America" because that's such an imprecise term. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have very few "Foods of" categories and also having "Food of", "Food products of", "Food industry" etc cats, these seem unnecessary. I was not going to open this discussion but was reverted, therefore we're here. E4024 (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I first uploading the image there were many "Foods of (country)" categories automatically suggested hence I have started the Foods of Mongolia category. Orgio89 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want Mongolian categories to be different than the great majority, I will wish you success and beg leave. I can help you only if you want help, if not, sorry. Have a good week-end. --E4024 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orgio89! Your mistake is quite reasonable when you saw all those other "Foods of..." categories. If you check, though, almost all of them simply redirect to "Food of..." categories. They're meant to help people looking for this content with the word "foods" instead of "food", but in this instance, they ended up confusing you. Moreover, Category:Food of Mongolia has existed since 2009, and there's obviously no need for both! But thanks for uploading images and for trying to categorize them appropriately. It's much appreciated. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that there are 135 categories finishing with "(Porto)" vs 5 with (Oporto). And there are 889 categories containing the name "Porto" vs 39 with the name "Oporto". It is a matter of standardization.--JotaCartas (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that there are 135 categories finishing with "(Porto)" vs 5 with (Oporto). And there are 889 categories containing the name "Porto" vs 39 with the name "Oporto". It is a matter of standardization.--JotaCartas (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
moved down so that the vote above is not misunderstood
I can add that there are 135 categories finishing with "(Porto)" vs 5 with (Oporto). And there are 889 categories containing the name "Porto" vs 39 with the name "Oporto". It is a matter of standardization.--JotaCartas (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to propose a general renaming of all instances of "Oporto" to "Porto", then do so, instead of sneaking individual renamings one by one. Especially if you’re argueing solely on the base of numbers. -- Tuválkin✉✇12:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply in kind: In Category:Praia there are many more items pertaining to Category:Beaches than to a city in Cape Verde — an example among many. Should we submit to this kind of tyranny of numbers, or should we discuss calmly what’s the best translation of the Portuguese toponym "Porto" into English? -- Tuválkin✉✇12:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Porto to match with category tree. Category:Praia has been a disambiguation page since January 2017, so that argument makes no sense. The category tree starts at Category:Porto. If you want to move it to Oporto, then you're welcome to start that discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can add that there are 135 categories finishing with "(Porto)" vs 5 with (Oporto). And there are 889 categories containing the name "Porto" vs 39 with the name "Oporto". It is a matter of standardization.--JotaCartas (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would draw a distinction between the Boc group itself and compounds containing the group. Boc-protected amines are tert-butyl carbamates but Boc2O, for example, is not – it doesn’t contain any nitrogen.
Keep. The hierarchy in most branches if the category tree is as follows:
Architecture (includes categories for architectural styles, architectural elements, structures, and more
Structures: includes categories for things that are constructed, such as brudges, monuments and memorials, and buildings
Buildings: includes categories for things like churches, temples, houses, shops, hotels, etc.
Why should this be different? Instead of eliminating these categories, populate them, and create them for other centuries. That would make it easier to find what you're looking for. Right now the "nth-century architecture" categories are a mix of different things (some of which are sorted together and some of which are not), and could use organization. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we'd have to create all the decade/year/country/city subcats right away just because we had the higher-level categories. There seem to be a fair number of users who like doing that work, so I'd bet they'd get created if needed. I do think we should create the high-level structure and building categories, though, and I'd volunteer to work on that. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We must have a cat for the island and others for the entities on it. We should do the same for the Island of Cyprus. --E4024 (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what moot means but we have quite a separation in Cyprus: UN Zone, Sovereign Bases Area, TRNC, and the southern part that continues to use the name of Republic of Cyprus. --E4024 (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; sometimes please consider people (like me) who have learned English in school or language courses please. --E4024 (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would appear to be another mirror of the English Wikipedia. It's easy for me to see now how concepts should not be Commons categories. Bigotry is a separate concept from all these. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is about an extremely short, uninteresting, street. The only notable building is Willem de Zwijgerkerk (Amsterdam), which has its entrance and formal and postal address at Olympiaweg (14), Amsterdam. Paulbe (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There’s also Acacia mitchellii: which is the correct spelling? The image in that cat has only one L in the filename, but if the species is named after someone called Mitchell, I wouldn‘t expect the last L to be dropped.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As we don't have a cat for "Arabic chicken" there is no need for this cat. Please, now we have only Category:Chicken dishes of Tunisia as a subcat here. Tomorrow someone will come and say "We are Zamazigs" etc and reject the "Arabic". Let us please classify cuisines only for countries and cities. Not "Arabic" etc. Arabic is a language. E4024 (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This meta category has amassed 77,326 subcategories and needs diffusion. Part of the problem is that for quite some time there have been several subcategories in Category:Aircraft by registration by type following the scheme of "Boeing 747 by registration" and the like, but people still keep adding both Category:Aircraft by registration and "Category:<Aircraft type> by registration" to the main categories where individual aircraft by registration are gathered. E.g. Category:EC-MLD (aircraft) is categorised both in "Category:Aircraft by registration" and "Category:Airbus A321 by registration". Contrary to COM:OVERCAT this seems to be the rule at aircraft categories rather than the exception. I am presenting this issue here because Ardfern suggested that it be discussed with Commons:WikiProject Aviation only. However, I don't think that local consensus can trump a Commons-wide policy, so exceptions need to be approved here. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a function (set) with 2 parameters - "Aircraft (by registration, by type)" have a superfunction (superset) with 1 parameter - "Aircraft (by registration)"?
That is how Wikimedia categories work. We define more specific categories the further we go down the category tree, and that means that more parameters come into play while the definition set out in a simple top category still remains valid for all elements further down the hierarchy. "Aircraft by registration" is for images where just the registration number is known. "Aircraft by registration by type" is a container for aircraft categories where the registration and the type is known, and "Category:Kawasaki C-1 by registration" and the like would be the next level. The problem, however, is that subcategories should only be part of one category level further up the direct line, and not be sorted into two related parent categories. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, what is a "category tree"? If it is a taxonomy , then we have: ROOT <- 1) SUBROOT1 (by A); 2) SUBROOT2 (by B); 3) SUBROOT3 (by A, by B). Examples: "Aircraft by parameters" <- 1) "Aircraft by registration"; 2) "Aircraft by type"; 3) "Aircraft by registration by type" --Fractaler (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't place an item into a category and its parent. For example, a black and white photo of the Eiffel Tower should be placed in Black and white photographs of the Eiffel Tower. It should not be placed in both that category and the Paris category at the same time.
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough when I started this discussion, but my main concern is not so much the way we may want to diffuse this category in the future but a massive case of overcategorisation right now. Contrary to the Commons policy on categories, there are probably hundreds of subcategories that are placed into a category and its parent. So my approach is to remove all those subcategories from Category:Aircraft by registration that have already been sorted into a category "by registration by type". This is the commonly accepted standard to solve the issue, but it has been challenged in this case and needs discussion. De728631 (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aircraft by registration, however, may very well contain registration categories like "Category:D-ECAB" if the aircraft type is unknown. Once the type becomes known, the registration category should be placed into "<Aircraft type> by registration" instead. De728631 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ignore the application of set theory above (IMO it isn't an appropriate model for Commons), as abstract theory is unlikely to be informative to a specific problem.
I will stick to practical concerns. Say I have a photo of the plane with registration G-BOAC. I don't have a clue what sort of plane that is, but if I create its category I can place it in Category:Aircraft by registration based on what I do know. Alternatively, imagine I am seeking images of G-BOAC. I know its registration, so its reasonable to use Category:Aircraft by registration to try to locate it. If its directly in that category, I can find it. If its buried in a "by type" subcategory I cannot find it, as I do not have that information. In both cases, having the individual plane's category in Category:Aircraft by registration is helpful. Removing it from that category is harmful.
To put this a different way, "I want a plane with registration G-BOAC" is not sensibly narrowed down by instead saying "I want a Concorde with registration G-BOAC". In contrast "I want a Concorde" is sensibly refined with "I want a Concorde with registration G-BOAC". That suggests Category:Aircraft by registration by type should be a subcat of "by type" but not "by registration".--Nilfanion (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for a specific category G-BOAC, your first start should be the search field anyway. It will guide you directly to the desired category without you having to browse the category tree. It is the fastest solution for "I want a plane with registration G-BOAC", so a direct entry in Category:Aircraft by registration is therefore not even necessary. Also, Category:Aircraft by registration by type includes the "registration" element, so the question would still arise why it is not linked back to Category:Aircraft by registration. Per our category policy, "each category should itself be in more general categories, forming a hierarchical structure." The hierarchical structure would be broken if Category:Aircraft by registration was not involved. Pinging @Joshbaumgartner: who created "by registration by type" as he might want to comment here too. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What I'm trying to demonstrate is that navigation in the category realm works both ways, not just top-down. So if I want to browse back from G-BOAC via "Concorde by registration" and further up the tree, I should be able to arrive at "Aircraft by registration" as well. De728631 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With bottom-up navigation, you can get to Aircraft by registration by some obvious logical route, no matter how its categorised. That is not true for top-down navigation unless it is directly in by registration. Breaking registrations down by type is simply NOT helpful for navigation. Outright deletion of by registration by type is preferable to have it messing up the utility of the by regisration category.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are contradicting yourself. A few paragraphs further up, you suggested that "Category:Aircraft by registration by type should be a subcat of 'by type'" rather than by registration while you are now outright opposed to "Breaking registrations down by type"? De728631 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh.. '"by registration by type" should be a subcat of "by type" rather than "by registration"' is consistent with 'don't break registrations down by type'? The latter statement is stronger, but doesn't contradict the former. If you already know the registration, adding in the type of aircraft doesn't narrow things down further, you already have a unique plane. (As an aside, to me "aircraft type" implies things like "helicopter" or "wide-body airliner" not "Boeing 777"). What benefit is there to any user in removing categories like Category:G-BOAC (aircraft) from Category:Aircraft by registration? IMO the only logical subcats for aircraft by registration are for the countries of registration. That would link all G registered planes together, and would allow G-BOAC to have a sortkey starting with B instead of G - making it slightly easier to find in the still huge list.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do have country-specific categories. Category:Aircraft registered in the United Kingdom is a parent for all G- registration categories, and there are lots of other such categories for more or less any registration prefix. And "type" is the official ICAO designation for what may otherwise be called an aircraft model. Using "model" for general aircraft categories is problematic though, because it should only be used for categories of scale models. Hence the "by type" wording of the subcategories that was rightfully introduced by Uli Elch. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And those are the only ones that logically belong under by registration. As they are aspects of aircraft registration, not an otherwise unrelated aspect of aircraft.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure?
Aircraft by registration
`-- Aircraft registered in the United Kingdom
`-- Aircraft registered in France
`---G-BOAC
`---F-IBEX
That way you would empty "Aircraft by registration" of all registration categories, because per COM:OVERCAT they would have to be sorted into the relevant country-specific subcategories, leaving you again with no direct search options. At the moment, "Aircraft by registration" and "Aircraft by registration country" are at the same level in Category:Aircraft registrations and that is a good structure. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with that structure. My point there is if we don't want to merge those two related concepts (the registration code and the registration country), why would we want to link two entirely unrelated categories?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Specific as in actually discussing the particular concern raised. Not discussing general points which could equally apply to any category. The application of set theory to Commons categories is the problematic case. Its based on the assumption that subategories must be subsets. That's clearly not true in many cases.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, if a subcategory is not a subset of its parent categories, where is the navigational benefit? Categories in a category tree shall "reflect a hierarchy of concepts, from the most generic one down to the very specific". De728631 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion. The navigational benefit is from linking two related concepts, but that relationship is not necessarily that between a set and its subset. The photos of a building in a city are a subset of the photos of the city. The photos of a building built by an architect are not a subset of the photos of the architect.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"See this discussion." TLDR, and too much set theory. Still, there is a relationship between the architect and his buildings, so the photos of buildings are a subset of images related to the architect. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The short version is that the real issues start to appear at the 2nd order. The building could easily be a subcat of an entirely different city (the birthplace of the architect). That relationship is tenuous, but the two steps to get there are perfectly valid. Its conceivable that someone would place a photo of the building directly in the architect's category; its implausible that they would place it in their birthplace's category. That relationship is clearly not a strict subset-of-subset relationship, in contrast to building-city-country which would be.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should retain current use of Category:Aircraft by registration. It is an index of all aircraft registrations, regardless of further sub-categorization that can occur. Sub-categorization can be done by type, by country of registration, or by any number of other criteria. It is best if a registration is accurately categorized by all relevant methods, not just one. However, none of that changes the fact that it is both valuable and without harm to have an index that retains a link to all registrations. Since it does no harm and provides value, the current structure and method of using Category:Aircraft by registration should be retained. Josh (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with having all single-aircraft registration categories in the main "Aircraft by registration" acting as a super-category. This is not uncommon practice. A standardisation of the "by type" subcategories is always a good thing, of course. — Huntster (t@c)19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are some valid reasons to rethink exactly how Category:Aircraft registrations is structured. Never mind the hashing about whether or not a guideline is being obeyed or whether we are properly applying set theory, none of that is terribly valuable. The category does however beg some more clarity and streamlining. There are a couple issues which we can deal with in pieces, or as a whole. Josh (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1 - xxxx (aircraft) categories are aircraft registrations, not aircraft. However, they are often treated as aircraft, especially since they say 'aircraft' parenthetically. This is not a problem for most common usage, but is exposed in corner cases and when analyzing the category structure. Keep in mind an aircraft may be assigned several registrations over its life, and some registrations may be assigned to different aircraft over time. Specific sub-categories of an aircraft registration category can be created to show its application to different aircraft (e.g. Category:N305FA (aircraft) into Category:N305FA (Boeing 737) and Category:N305FA (MD-83)). Proper names should be 'Aircraft registration N305FA' with sub-cats 'Aircraft registration N305FA assigned to Boeing 737 c/n 28662' and 'Aircraft registration N305FA assigned to MD-83 c/n 49398'. I am not proposing renaming these categories, unless someone is up for moving 75,000+ categories. The current abbreviated names are fine, but we should have a better description of what exactly those categories cover.
2 - Category:Aircraft by registration is named incorrectly. As noted above, the sub-cats are aircraft registrations, not aircraft, so the correct title should be Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list) or some other such appropriate title to indicate it is an index of all aircraft registrations ordered alpha-numerically. As it is, the current name adds to the confusion referred to in note 1 above. It may be appropriate to make this category a hidden cat while we are at it. Once this is done, sub and meta cats can be moved directly under Category:Aircraft registrations.
3 - Military identification numbers are not consistently treated. These are sometimes treated as aircraft registrations and other times as serial numbers or some other unrelated tree. Category:Aircraft registrations should cover all individual aircraft identifications assigned by authorities, military or civil. Sub-categorization can break down between assigning authorities for those that it is helpful for, but not all users will know what the issuing authority is for a particular identifier. No rename is needed, but a better description is required to make it clear what the category covers.
4 - Category:Aircraft by registration country is named incorrectly. As above, a more clear and concise name should be used, such as Category:Aircraft registrations by country of issue, to make it clear that the items within are aircraft registrations and that they are ordered by the country which issued the registration. It should be listed directly under Category:Aircraft registrations and not under Category:Aircraft by registration/Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list). Category:Aircraft by registration continent should get similar treatment, though 'continents' do not issue registrations, countries do.
Some tweaks like these would allow the continued use of aircraft registration categories essentially as they have been used for the 75,000+ registrations in place, while at the same time adding clarity and cleaning up the structure of the category quite a bit. They will hopefully go some way to satisfying concerns over COM:OVERCAT and the set theory issues raised by De728631 (talk·contribs) and Fractaler (talk·contribs). Josh (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to differentiate between xxxx (aircraft) and xxxx (aircraft registration) and all subsequent namings. Apart from Category:Temporary aircraft registrations that are used for test and transfer flights, registrations are seldom changed over the life of an aircraft frame and the registration is therefore often synonymous with the single airframe it got assigned to. We already have Category:Re-used aircraft registrations and its appropriate sub-categories as you showed above.
@De728631: You are incorrect that registrations are seldom changed; it is common practice to change a commercial aircraft registration several times during its life, especially when it changes ownership. I would not advise eliminating the existing sub-categorization of xxxx (aircraft) into xxxx (specific aircraft) categories. Assuming synonymy between an aircraft and its registration is a mistake. As stated, I am not proposing that these categories be renamed, but merely that we have better definition of them as being specifically related to that aircraft registration. Josh (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you wrote "Category:Aircraft by registration is named incorrectly. ... the correct title should be Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list) or some other such appropriate title", or "Category:Aircraft by registration by manufacturer and type are incorrect. They should be renamed Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned". Isn't that renaming? Apart from Category:Aircraft registrations (flat list), I think this is unnecessary, and imho Category:Aircraft registrations by aircraft assigned would be outright confusing. Btw, you created the two latter categories (by registration by manufacturer / by registration by type [model]) last year, so how come you changed your mind now? As I see it, the focus is already on the registration numbers now – even with names like "xxxx (aircraft)". If it's really that common for commercial registrations to be changed, Category:Re-used aircraft registrations with xxxx (specific aircraft) subcategories should become more populated though. Different aircraft should not be lumped into a single registration category. De728631 (talk)
My apologies for not being clear. I don't propose changing the xxxx (aircraft) naming scheme. I do however, think that the meta cats they are in should be renamed per my suggestions above. You are right that some of them are ones I created myself under flawed names. I named them as I did in order to keep with the naming of Category:Aircraft by registration, but I wasn't thrilled by it at the time, and I am even less so now. I'm not sure what you are concerned about with lumping. As it stands now, if a registration is applied to multiple aircraft (which is less common than one aircraft having multiple registrations), then it should be broken down (see Category:N305FA (aircraft)). The main registration category should be also categorized in Category:Re-used aircraft registrations. That is current practice, and I don't think anyone is suggesting changing it. Josh (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Military ID numbers are a problem though. Apparently there are in fact two major approaches among the armed forces of how to apply such registrations, namely using an aircraft's generic serial number (e.g. US Air Force, Italy) or issuing an unrelated ID (Germany, UK, Netherlands, etc.) Sometimes like in Italy or Spain, there are even two parallel schemes of markings on a single aircraft, such as an internal squadron ID (e.g. 41-12) and a permanent serial number. This has already led to inconsistent category schemes as in Category:Military aircraft registered in Spain or Category:Military aircraft registered in Italy (see the MM##### serials). So these need some consistency. De728631 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The US is no different than Germany or the UK: none use a 'generic' serial number, but instead assign their own numbers per whatever system they have established at the time. Some of these systems adopt the serials already assigned by other agencies or the manufacturer, but again, the sytems are set by each individual issuing authority. What is fundamentally different are identifiers that are assigned for the service life of an aircraft (such as the US Navy's BuNo) vs. those that are assigned to indicate organizational assignment and may be changed throughout its service life (such as the US Navy's tactical codes). However, in all cases, just as with civil registrations, the categories are for the identifier, not the airframe, and thus they should all be handled within the same consistent structure regardless of local differences in how such numbers are devised. Josh (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the service-life ID vs tactical code schemes. It is essentially what I tried to write above but maybe it didn't come through. I agree that in the future we should not use any tactical codes for "registration" categories but stick to BuNos, serials and other such official "top-level" IDs. Where applicable, we should redirect existing "tactical" categories to categories with the official registration number, e.g. Category:43-28 (aircraft) → Category:UD.13-28 (aircraft). De728631 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you that the 'tactical codes' and the like should not be necessarily considered aircraft registrations, while 'serial numbers' like BuNos, etc. should be under aircraft registrations. I also agree that it is curently not consistent and has been hard to know exactly how to proceed with those kinds of categories. We can have 'tactical code' categories, but they should be kept in their own category. The difficulty will be that many users may not be aware of the differences. Josh (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For 'tactical codes' I assume you mean Squadron Codes and yes users may not be aware of the differences. Even aircraft enthusiasts get it wrong. A Chilean aircraft at the Farnborough Airshow was widely quoted in reports as having a serial which later turned out to be a squadron code. Seperate categories for these could be useful? eg Aircraft of 32 Squatron for example. SkymasterUK (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now on the page Category:B-6140 (aircraft) we can see such static information: Airbus A380-841, cn/serial number: 120, *China Southern Airlines 2013 to date as B-6140. No "is an 'aircraft registration'" on the page. And the pages from the examples have definitions on their pages ("China Southern Airlines is an airline based in Guangzhou in the Guangdong province of the People's Republic of China (PRC)", etc.). --Fractaler (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or, for example, Wikidata's definitions:
Categories for discussion/Archive/2018
<nowiki>matrícula de aeronaves; 飛機註冊編號; lajstromjel; matrícula de l'aeronau; Luftfahrzeugkennzeichen; فهرست پیشوندهای ثبتی هواپیما; 航空器註冊編號; Nationale kendingsbogstaver; ہوائی جہاز رجسٹریشن; 機体記号; Luftfartygsregister; רישום כלי טיס; 航空器註冊編號; Ilma-alusrekisteri; registra numero de aviadilo; imatrikulace; registracija zrakoplova; marche d'immatricolazione; আকাশযান নিবন্ধীকরণ; immatriculation des aéronefs; registracija zrakoplova; לופטמאשין רעגיסטראציע; prefixo aeronáutico; Prefixo aeronáutico; Luftfohrtüüchkennteken; регистрација ваздухоплова; Registracija zrakoplova; 항공기 등록부호; orlaivių registracija; 航空器註冊編號; registrasi pesawat; międzynarodowy kod samolotowy; nasjonale kjennetegn på fly; vliegtuigregistratienummer; ہوائی جہاز رجسٹریشن; регистрация воздушных судов; Самолетазул хъвай-хъвагӀай; Uçak tescili; aircraft registration; تسجيل طائرة; 航空器注册编号; реєстрація повітряних суден; serie alfanumérica que distingue a una aeronave; 航空機の機体ごとに割り当てられている記号及び番号; egy repülőgépet azonosító, betűkből és számokból álló jel; registersystem för civila luftfartyg; międzynarodowy system znakowania statków powietrznych; individuelt registreringsnummer for fly og andre registreringspliktige luftfartøy; registratie waaronder het vliegtuig bekend is bij de nationale autoriteit; קאד וואס אידענטיפיצירט א לופטמאשין; Code, der ein Luftfahrzeug eindeutig identifiziert; জাতীয় বিমান কর্তৃপক্ষ কর্তৃক একটি পৃথক বিমানের জন্য নির্ধারিত নিবন্ধীকরণ এবং শনাক্তকরণ; registration and identification assigned to an individual aircraft by national aviation authorities; matricola alfanumerica che identifica un aeromobile; registrační značka letadla přidělená příslušným úřadem; string alfanumerik pesawat terbang; código de matriculación de aeronaves OACI; código de registro de aeronaves; matrícula aeronáutica; matricula de aeronaves; codigo de matriculacion de aeronaves OACI; codigo de registro de aeronaves; matricula aeronautica; 機体登録記号; 機体登録番号; 登録記号; 機体登録; 機体番号; 機番; レジ; レジ番; Immatriculations aéronautiques; Immatriculations aéraunautiques; marche; codice velivolo; codice di registrazione degli aeromobili; matricola degli aeromobili; matricola aeromobili; marche di immatricolazione; marche aeromobile; matricola aeromobile; numero di coda; nomor pendaftaran pesawat; kod samolotowy; halenummer; Vliegtuigregistratie; Staartnummer; Бортовой номер самолета; Регистрационный номер воздушного судна; Регистрационный номер самолёта; Бортовой номер самолёта; 機尾編號; 機身編號; 飛機註冊編號; 飞机注册编号; 注册号; Flugzeugkennzeichen; Flugzeug-Kennung; Luftfahrzeugkennung; Flugzeugkennung; Flugzeugkennungen; Kennzeichen von Luftfahrzeugen; Flugleistungsklasse; Luftfahrzeug-Kennung; 항공기 등록번호; 항공기 등록기호; aircraft registration code; tail number; aircraft marks; registration marks; تسجيل طائره; تسجيل الطائرة; registrační značky letadel; imatrikulace letadla; registrační značka letadla; Internationale kendingsbogstaver</nowiki>
aircraft registration
registration and identification assigned to an individual aircraft by national aviation authorities
<nowiki>Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Еърбъс А380; ایئربس اے380; ایئربس اے380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Аеробус A380; Airbus A380; 空中巴士A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Ербас А380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; এয়ারবাস এ৩৮০; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; ערבוס A380; एअरबस ए३८०; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Ербас А380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; 空中巴士A380; ئێرباس ئەی٣٨٠; Airbus A380; إيرباص إيه 380; Airbus A380; Airbas A380; အဲယားဘတ်စ် A380; 空中巴士 A380; Airbus A380; એરબસ એ ૩૮૦; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; ایرباس آ-۳۸۰; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; エアバスA380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; एयरबस ए३८०; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; ஏர்பஸ் ஏ380; Airbus A380; แอร์บัส เอ380; Airbus A380; එයාර් බස් A380; Airbus A380; Аэробус A380; ఎయిర్బస్ A380; 空中客车A380; 空中巴士A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Erbas A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Ербас А380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; എയർബസ് എ380; 空中巴士A380; Airbus A380; איירבוס A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; Airbus A380; 空中客车A380; Airbus A380; 에어버스 A380; avión quatrimotor de fuselaje ancho y doble piso, actualmente el avión de pasajeros más grande del mundo; breiðþota; Pesawat berbadan lebar, dua dek, empat enjin, kini merupakan pesawat penumpang terbesar di dunia; Wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world; Широкофюзелажен, двупалубен, четиримоторен самолет, в момента най-големият пътнически самолет в света; avion de pasageri; ایئربس کا تیارکردہ دو منزلہ طیارہ; Fiaramanidina midadasika, avo roa heny, misy maotera efatra, amin'izao fotoana izao no fiaramanidina mpandeha lehibe indrindra eran-tany; dopravné lietadlo; двохпалубний широкофюзеляжний пасажирський літак, створений Airbus; 四发涡轮风扇大容积远程客机; Airbus에서 제작 한 더블 데크 항공기; Кең шанақты, екі палубалы, төрт қозғалтқышты ұшақ, қазіргі уақытта әлемдегі ең үлкен жолаушы ұшағы; největší dopravní letoun světa; Širokotrupni avion sa dva sprata sa četiri motora, trenutno najveći putnički avion na svetu; ওয়াইড-বডি, ডাবল-ডেক, চার ইঞ্জিনের বিমান, বর্তমানে বিশ্বের বৃহত্তম যাত্রীবাহী বিমান; plus gros avion civil du monde, produit par Airbus de 2007 à 2021; Wide-body, dobel-deck, pesawat papat mesin, saiki pesawat penumpang paling gedhe ing donya; Širokotrupni, dvopalubni, četveromotorni zrakoplov, trenutno najveći putnički zrakoplov na svijetu; वाइड-बॉडी, डबल-डेक, चार इंजिन असलेले विमान, सध्या जगातील सर्वात मोठे प्रवासी विमान आहे; Dòng máy bay thân rộng 2 tầng bốn động cơ do Airbus phát triển; Plata korpusa, divstāvu, četru dzinēju lidmašīna, šobrīd lielākā pasažieru lidmašīna pasaulē; dubbel-dek vliegtuig vervaardig deur Airbus; Широкотрупни, двоспратни, четворомоторни авион, тренутно највећи путнички авион на свету; Plèana le corp farsaing, deic dhùbailte, ceithir-einnsean, an-dràsta an itealan luchd-siubhail as motha san t-saoghal; Breet-Kierper, duebel-Deck, véier-Moteur Fliger, de Moment de gréisste Passagéierfliger vun der Welt; langdistanse passasjerfly; Geniş gövdəli, ikiqat göyərtəli, dörd mühərrikli təyyarə, hazırda dünyanın ən böyük sərnişin təyyarəsidir; wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world; طائرة ذات طابقين تصنعها إيرباص; négyhajtóműves, széles törzsű, óriás utasszállító repülőgép; વાઈડ-બોડી, ડબલ-ડેક, ફોર એન્જિન એરક્રાફ્ટ, હાલમાં વિશ્વનું સૌથી મોટું પેસેન્જર એરક્રાફ્ટ; Gorputz zabaleko, solairu biko eta lau motorreko hegazkinak, gaur egun munduko bidaiarien hegazkin handiena; avión de doble puente fabricáu por Airbus; Двухпалубный пассажирский самолёт; Awyren pedwar injan corff llydan, dec dwbl, yr awyren fwyaf yn y byd i deithwyr ar hyn o bryd; بزرگترین هواپیمای مسافربری جهان; 四發動機中長程雙層客機; Wide-body, dobbeltdækket, firemotors fly, i øjeblikket det største passagerfly i verden; ფართო ტანის, ორსართულიანი, ოთხძრავიანი თვითმფრინავი, ამჟამად ყველაზე დიდი სამგზავრო თვითმფრინავია მსოფლიოში; エアバス製の総二階建て4発ジェット旅客機; מטוס נוסעים רחב-גוף דו-קומתי; Киң гәүдәле, ике катлы, дүрт двигательле самолет, хәзерге вакытта дөньядагы иң зур пассажир самолеты; वाइड-बॉडी, डबल-डेक, चार इंजन वाला विमान, वर्तमान में दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा यात्री विमान है; వైడ్-బాడీ, డబుల్ డెక్, ఫోర్-ఇంజిన్ ఎయిర్క్రాఫ్ట్, ప్రస్తుతం ప్రపంచంలోనే అతిపెద్ద ప్యాసింజర్ ఎయిర్క్రాఫ్ట్; maailman suurin matkustajalentokone; Wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world; பரந்த உடல், இரட்டை அடுக்கு, நான்கு எஞ்சின் விமானம், தற்போது உலகின் மிகப்பெரிய பயணிகள் விமானம்; modello di aeromobile a doppio ponte; Laia kerega kahekorruseline neljamootoriline lennuk, hetkel suurim reisilennuk maailmas; 四发涡轮风扇大容积远程客机; පුළුල් ශරීර, ද්විත්ව තට්ටු, එන්ජින් හතරේ ගුවන් යානා, දැනට ලෝකයේ විශාලතම මගී ගුවන් යානය; Dünyanın en büyük yolcu uçağı; Corpus latum, duplex deck, quattuor machinae aircraft, nunc maxima viatoribus aircraft in mundo; aeronave quadrimotor a jato para transporte de passageiros; อากาศยานไอพ่นลำตัวกว้างสองชั้น; europeiskt fyrmotorigt jetflygplan för långdistansflygning; avion de linha civil fòrça gròs-portaire long-corrièr quadrireactor de doble pont produit per Airbus; Plataus korpuso, dviejų aukštų, keturių variklių lėktuvas, šiuo metu didžiausias keleivinis lėktuvas pasaulyje; Širokotrupno, dvonivojsko, štirimotorno letalo, trenutno največje potniško letalo na svetu; एयरबस द्वारा डबल-डेक विमानको निर्माण; passagiersvliegtuig; silnik Airbus'a A380Samolot pasażerski; pesawat dek ganda berbadan lebar; Ndege yenye mwili mpana, yenye sitaha, yenye injini nne, ambayo kwa sasa ni ndege kubwa zaidi ya abiria duniani; വൈഡ് ബോഡി, ഡബിൾ ഡെക്ക്, ഫോർ എഞ്ചിൻ എയർക്രാഫ്റ്റ്, നിലവിൽ ലോകത്തിലെ ഏറ്റവും വലിയ യാത്രാ വിമാനം; 搭載4台引擎的空中巴士巨無霸客機; vierstrahliges Großraumflugzeug; Авион со широк каросерија, двокатни, четири мотори, моментално најголемиот патнички авион во светот; Լայն թափքով, երկհարկանի, չորս շարժիչով ինքնաթիռ, ներկայումս աշխարհի ամենամեծ մարդատար ինքնաթիռը; Keng korpusli, ikki qavatli, to'rt dvigatelli samolyot, hozirgi vaqtda dunyodagi eng katta yo'lovchi samolyoti; avión de pasaxeiros; Өргөн биетэй, хоёр тавцантай, дөрвөн хөдөлгүүртэй онгоц нь одоогоор дэлхийн хамгийн том зорчигч тээврийн онгоц юм; τύπος αεροσκάφους της Airbus; avió civil fabricat per Airbus; A380; Airbus A3XX; A380; A380; A380; 空中巴士A380; 空客A380; A380; A380; A380; 空巴A380; 空巴巨無霸客機; A380; Airbus Jumbo Jet; A380 Jumbo Jet; ए३८०; Superjumbo; A380; A380; A380 Jumbo Jet; Airbus Jumbo Jet; A380 Jumbo Jet; A380; A٣٨٠; أيرباص ٣٨٠; إيرباص A٣٨٠; إيرباص آي ٣٨٠; إيرباص آي٣٨٠; إيرباص إيه ٣٨٠; إيرباص إيه٣٨٠; إيرباص ٣٨٠; إيه ٣٨٠; اير باص ايه-٣٨٠; ايرباص A٣٨٠; ايرباص ايه ٣٨٠; ايرباص٣٨٠; ايرباص ايه 380; إيرباص A380; إيرباص إيه380; ايرباص A380; إيرباص آي380; اير باص ايه-380; إيرباص 380; ايرباص380; أيرباص 380; A380; إيه 380; إيرباص آي 380; سوبر جامبو; Airbus A380 (dopravní letadlo); A380</nowiki>
Airbus A380
wide-body, double-deck, four-engine aircraft, currently the largest passenger aircraft in the world
Those infoboxes are well suited to gallery pages, but not so much for categories. Wikidata doesn't have items for individual aircraft registrations as far as I am aware. I just looked it up and there are no items with instance of: Q838849 (aircraft registration) Josh (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean these items? About definition: in order to be able to display the definition (by version of WD, if there is no version of Commons) on a category page, I'm now trying to make a template {{DescriptionWD}} (using Module:Wikidata description). For example, "aircraft registration": registration and identification assigned to an individual aircraft by national aviation authorities --Fractaler (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631, Fractaler, Nilfanion, Auntof6, and Huntster:
Can we possibly close this out? There was a lot of discussion but not much in the way of specific proposals or consensus of said proposals. The OP (de728631) was correct that this category violates COM:OVERCAT when sub cats such as Category:Airbus A320 by registration are included. There is no reason it should, so I propose we fix this by simply restricting this category to actual categories which include the registration in their name (e.g. Category:B-6140 (aircraft)) and not other metacats and such. For the purposs of this category, the term 'registration' includes all officially assigned aircraft IDs, and thus includes civil aircraft registrations issued by national aviation authorities as well as military aircraft serial numbers assigned for the aircraft's service life. Is it possible that we can agree on this simple tweak to come into compliance with COM:OVERCAT and then tackle the other issues raised above in their own conversations? Josh (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously expressed my opinion that keeping this a super-category for all registrations is not an issue and is a reasonable exception (as with Category:Ships by name and others). There is the very real potential for a flat-list to be useful to end users. — Huntster (t@c)23:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this should be a flat category containing all registrations. I understand the concerns about overcategorization, but I think categories containing all individual entries are useful. Maybe this cat should be renamed to indicate that it's a flat category. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would make sense. That way we'd have a cat with a subcat for each registration ID, and we could also have categories that group the IDs by whatever criteria are useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It don't think it's redundant -- "sexy nurse outfits" are not nurse uniforms that happen to be sexy, but a particular type of highly-specialized Halloween costume or costume-party outfit, which actual qualified working nurses generally wouldn't be seen dead in. (Note that very few actual qualified nurses have worn skirts or dresses on the job in the last 40 years.) "Sexy nurse outfits" bear the same relationship to professional nurse attire that Category:French maid outfits bear to uniforms worn by actual cleaning personnel... AnonMoos (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree that there is a difference between people wearing costumes to pretend that they are nurses and nurses wearing their uniforms. What we have now is a category of costumes and a subcategory also of costumes. We didn't actually have a category for actual nurse uniforms, so I have created Category:Nurse's uniforms for the uniforms only. Can we get rid of the "sexy" one now, or should we discuss which ones are sexy and which ones aren't? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I highly approve of the creation of Category:Nurse's uniforms (thanks), but that doesn't change the fact that "sexy" in "sexy nurse outfits" is not a subjective evaluation, but rather a descriptor of the nature and purpose of such outfits. Do a Google search on the words nurse halloween and see how often the word "sexy" is included in the results... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Nurse16thcentury.jpg isn't wearing any special outfit or costume at all, but normal women's clothing for the period. I have very little idea what's going on with the "Eurogym" nonsense, but the skirts are much much shorter than real nurses ever wore (back when they wore skirts), which moves it pretty firmly into the "sexy" column (ditto File:Zombie Nurse (5134635912).jpg). -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one expects cheap Halloween or dress-up costumes to be historically accurate. A nurse costume is a nurse costume. Once distinguished from nurse's uniforms, there is no useful reason to divide them into "sexy" or not "sexy" based on subjective ideas of what is sexy. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It derives from the nature and purpose of the outfit, not subjective evaluation. The person or company who made the dress in File:Dragon Con 2006, The Twilight Zone, The Eye of the Beholder (244341293).jpg clearly did not intend to sex it up. With many of the others, the opposite intention is clear. There are a few where it's hard to tell due to a limited view, or the "costume" consisting exclusively of a headpiece, but those are marginal cases... AnonMoos (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that the phrase "sexy nurse costume" gets 952,000 hits per google. It seems a cultural archetype rather than a personal judgement. (I tried searches for other professions in place of "nurse". "Sexy maid costume" comes in a distant second with a bit over 200,000 hits, only a handful over 100k, most under 1k if not significantly less.)-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This post should not be named "Neumünster Prison" but "Solidarity with Puigdemont". It provides almost no useful information about the prison. Only interesting as support for Catalan separatists. 192.1z64.136.2017:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tose pics are taken at Neumünster prison, this is a fact. So they illustrate that building. I shall not respond to anonymous critics that don't have the courage to say who they are.--Flamenc (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please both of you avoid personal attacks. Second, I agree that all the images were taken at Neumünster prison, so there're perfectly appropriate for the category. For those images specifically showing protests/protest signs at the prison, a sub-category of Category:Neumünster Prison (JVA)could be created. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is not a good categorization and must be eliminated. I already presented to speedy deletion one of its four subcats. Another one, "Tamil people by occupation": Tamil people are an ethnic group, a people, a nationality. They have no need to be defined "by language". We should empty the present cat and delete it. E4024 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked a related discussion of a category that seems to be a duplicate of this one. I think both could be eliminated. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have no "Medical corps" cat for any (current or former) country; therefore we do not need any for the Ottoman Empire. OTOH, the cat-opener continues their practice of wrong capitalization, despite having been spoken to. I will get this cat deleted. If there is any compelling reason to keep it -after correcting the title- please write here ASAP. E4024 (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because; how are we to be sure that some of these are not from transgender people? Did you get proof of gender or maybe only women whom have had a child; should provide a proper picture. Otherwise; these may not be correct. 98.159.32.14607:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can consider vulvas, vaginas, labia, etc. to be female organs even if they belong to 1) a transman who has not had gender reassignment surgery or 2) a transwoman who has had the surgery. In this situation, we are talking about the organs, not the people they belong to. Unless and until we have a different term for this ("reproductive organs related to being pregnant, carrying a fetus, and giving birth"?), this may be the best we can do. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vote on what, exactly? This is cats for discussion, not for deletion. The editor who started this discussion seems to have an issue with whether the files in the category fit the cat name. They don't seem to be saying the cat should be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The category and its subcategories consist primarily of subjective opinions of other images on Commons, and some instances of attack images. Examples include editors labelling a female lizard rebuffing a male's courtship as "inceldom among animals". Given that "inceldom" is not a notable sexual identity (or medical condition) there is no educational value served by maintaining this category. RA0808 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these. The topic is so subjective that the only things I think could be included are literature specifically about the topic, conferences that discuss it, and similar things that explicitly mention it. If we're going to include everyone who would like to have a sexual partner, what would be next: people who can't get dates? In the case of animals, we certainly can't always know if their situation is involuntary, and we shouldn't look at them through the lens of human sexuality anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main category as well as the media category. Weak keep for the animal category. Delete the rest. My purpose for keeping these is that this seems to be a significant social phenomenon as even a cursory google search will attest. The only reason it seems subjective is because the concept is not thoroughly defined by academia, however due to recent influx of interest that is obvious bound to change. if we delete this now, it is possible commons will never find anyone willing to pt time and effort to revive the topic hence making commons deprived of possible edcational topics. 88.104.46.20022:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why keep the media category? The contents are images from the promotion of the NBC sitcom en:Undateable, whose wiki articles, unsurprisingly, make zero mention of incel culture. And I daresay any attempt to stick an incel spin into the enwiki article would be quickly reverted. This seems to me to be another example of an editor using the Commons, which is subject to less scrutiny than enwiki, to create subjective misleading linkages to incel culture for the purposes of promoting or legitimizing it, here. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly an attempt to draw together a bunch of disparate items regardless of accuracy or relevance. There's a cartoon from 1903 purporting to be of a 21st century concept. Unless we have some kind of reliable source documenting a link, this is inappropriate categorization. Gamaliel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are currently 4 relevant images. The delete rationale does not concur with reality since google search returns give 2,170,000 results, so obviously it is notable. Also, the fact that inceldom has been studied by some academics (although admittedly to a limted extent) such as Gilmartin and Donelly means that there is an educational component, even though that shouldnt be a necessity since the subculture alone is notable in and of itself. Tbaend (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe keep the "inceldom" top level category, but there is not enough content to justify the others. "Inceldom among animals" should absolutely be deleted, since as far as I'm aware no animals are members of the online subculture... – GorillaWarfare(talk)16:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename main category back to Category:Incel, from which it was wrongly moved, to match articles, and Delete subcategories. There definitely seems to be some POV pushing here with the subcats. The notion that celibate animals are participating in something known as 'inceldom' is ludicrous. We need to be on guard against any attempt to equate any celibate male (as I happen to be, alas) with being somehow part of Incel culture and its value system, or using the Commons as a en:WP:WEBHOST for its followers, or as a platform to misuse images to create en:WP:SYNTH meanings to attempt to justify this ideology. Without wading too much into the muck of this, my guess is incellies didn't get their way on enwiki or someplace and are attempting to use the Commons to host content or push views. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People will naturally expect to find the cat at "Foods" as most categories are in plural, if this is deleted, it could cause files to have a red cat. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. For a correct synthaxe in a category name it's not necessary to know the content of the object. Change the name. Thanks. --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Some of the subcats here have newspaper names capitalized and some others not. I guess we should have a standard practice. Please do not get unnecessarily mad at me for doing it this way; if not I would have to open too many cats to discussion. I'm sure that would be more disturbing and time consuming; so, especially people who know Russian also please say something constructive to help with this CfD. E4024 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing without action on this category, as it is a reasonable and used intersection of two categories. Certain categories may benefit from improved naming, but that is not an issue with this particular category. -- 22:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This discussion encloses also Victims of colonialism.
Both categories are a clear POV.
Imperialism is a term created by the political opponents of capitalism.
Is not a, so to say, self-conscious doctrine like Fascism of Communism which definitions are widely agreed upon everyone (no metter if oppnents). Thus is a POV definition. Further, it had only a subcategory, which is related to a massacre of the Vietnam War. Nothing related to the imperialism. As a matter of fact, I think the whole tree Imperialism as problematic and out of scope here. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)17:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fascists call themselves as "fascists", @Themightyquill: . I am Italian thus I well know the history of Fascism. In 1932 there was the Mostra Nazionale della Rivoluzione Fascista (National Exposition of the Fascist Revolution). Have you ever heard anyone acting as so-called imperialist call themselves imperialist? That's what I mean, hope that what I said makes sense. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)11:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackcat: In common usage as on commons, fascism is not limited to Italian fascism. And yes, I suspect some of those in favour of empire (White Man's burden, etc) would have used the term as a self-description, though admittedly, it was (and is) primarily used in a negative sense. I don't suspect many terrorists call themselves terrorists either, but we still have a category for their victims. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but terrorist is a less vague definition than imperialist, @Themightyquill: . How do you define an imperialist? How do you classify a crime of war crime of imperialism (unless you want to consider all the modern wars since WWI wars of imperialism)? -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)17:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think terrorism has a pretty vague and subjective definition too. Why would I start at WWI? Arguably, that's when empires started to collapse. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but terrorism is a hugely intersubjectively assessed definition. Journalists, historians, law enforcers, agree that terrorism is generally the use of violence by paramilitary organizations in order to create terror and undermine the authority of a government [I reckon that there's more than this]; whereas we can identify victims of terrorism according to commonly assessed parametres, how can we define a victim of colonialism or imperialism? -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)20:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of these categories are subjective. It's similarly difficult, for instance, to classify "victims of communism" according to commonly assessed paramters. You have yet to suggest a suitable alternative for the sub-categories mentioned above, making your argument seem increasingly ideological rather than technical in nature. If you're concerned about the nebulous nature of the word "imperialism" how about "Victims of European imperial expansion" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but again: historians generally agree about the event horizon within which every ideology has its victims. They may disagree about the quantity of victims and the diametre of the horizon but the bottom line is that they agree that this horizon exists. Now, even considering imperialism as an issue per se (which is not granted because many historians don't see the expansion on new markets as imperialism) the main problem is how to consider the people dead in an episode of war "victims of imperialism" (not that changing into european imperial expansion is any better...). -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)18:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply] PS and, even more shortly: we are not historians nor we have to do their work. There's a shared narrative about victims of communism, victims of fascism, victims of Inquisition, and so on, but victims of imperialism is not a shared view (undue weight) since is a cultural product of historians and economists of Marxist area....
Closing with no action taken; no new discussion since May 2018. No consensus to delete or rename category. (As an aside, the nominator's statement that that the term is of "political opponents of capitalism" seems unfounded, as empires that victimized populations date from antiquity, and the Spanish Empire at it's height, whether one follows the definitions of Marx or Adam Smith, was not capitalist, etc; see also en:w:Soviet Empire for viewpoint that "communist" states can also be imperialist... though such is a discussion for elsewhere; I am simply noting that the nominator's viewpoint is not universally held.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I'd say move this cat as suggested, because I believe in qualifying anything like this, then move the gallery disambiguation page to a cat disambiguation page. Along with qualifying the state category, many subcats would need the same change. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep Category:Maine for the U.S. state. On Commons, our driving guiding principles should be those that best help organize existing media and future additions, i.e. utility and practicality over semantics, linguistics, or national pride. The U.S. state is the undisambiguated usage in the majority of languages on WIkipedia (Maine (Q724)), while the French province is almost always disambiguated (Maine (Q732738)). The historic French province was apparently abolished in 1790, and the region occupied by the former province has a present population of around 850,000, while the U.S. state is still quite real as a political and geographical entity, with a population over 1.3 million. There are presently 35 top-level categories and over 1,300 top-level files in Category:Maine alone, versus 5 categories and 19 files in Category:Maine (province). We should ask: what is the likelihood that the average user, either seeking to find or upload an image, will reach the unintended category: given that the province of Maine ended some 40-50 years before the first photograph was ever made, it can be reasoned that someone seeking to upload a photograph of, say, "people in Maine" are most-likely to be imagining the U.S. state. Our categorization scheme should best reflect and accommodate prevailing usage, although I have no objection to liberal usage of hatnote templates to help direct a minority of users who may be temporarily confused. --Animalparty (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the primary topic at the unqualified title works well at Wikipedia, because Wikipedia deals with text. When reading an article there, it's easy to tell if it's about the topic you're interested in. If a person is looking for the French province and finds en:Maine, they will know it's the wrong topic as soon as they see the hatnote or the first sentence.
Commons, though, deals with files, not text. Someone looking for files about the French province might be able to tell that Category:Maine isn't what they want by looking at how it's categorized or at any hatnotes there might be, much as with Wikipedia. However, much of the work here is putting files into categories, and that's where we get into trouble when we follow Wikipedia's practice. Here are some scenarios that illustrate this:
Files get categorized by people and bots who don't (and sometimes can't, in the case of bots) check each category they assign. If a file has a list of key words, all the keywords might be assigned as categories, whether or not they exist and whether or not some of them need to be combined to be correct. For example, a file related to New York City might be assigned to Category:New, Category:York, and Category:City. A person using HotCat to categorize sees only category names, not any context that could guide them to the correct one.
If the unqualified name happens to mean something in a language other than English, things for that meaning can get assigned to the category. For example, Category:Praia (Cape Verde) used to get random beach pictures before it was qualified, because praia means beach in Portuguese.
Not everyone understands the concept of primary topic. Even with people who do understand it, they might not know, agree, or be able to tell which meaning is primary when assigning categories. People who live in the French province of Maine might not know about the US state.
If a file gets into an incorrect category, it can be impossible to detect that. A tree, a person, or a street in the state of Maine may be indistinguishable from one in the French province. The only clues are in the file and file description, and those often have nothing helpful.
One could argue that people and bots need to be better at categorizing, and that's true in many cases. However, reality is that these kinds of mistakes are made, and having qualified category names gives us a better chance of assigning correct categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closed Stale discussion with no new input in more than 3 years. No consensus to change or move. Leaving Category:Maine as the US state, as that is the primary usage and consistent with en:w and wikipedias in other languages. Hatnote to Category:Maine (disambiguation) placed at top of category. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I'd say the difference between the two is highly dependent upon your particular region - rules for admission to children vary by district, and atmosphere is not subject to laws. A bar can be a discotheque or a pub. A pub can serve food or not. I'd agree that "pub" or Public House is used more in countries with a connection to the UK but Category:Pubs by country defies that. So we can pick one generic term for everything, or categorizing drinking establishments based on their name, in which case we also need to create category trees for Category:Taverns, Category:Saloons and Category:Lounges, as well as "Kneipe" or "Wirtshaus" (german), "kocsma" (Hungarian), "pivnica" (czech), etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit of an odd title, and I think "Pubs" is unambiguous and clear enough to be at the baename and used for both, but that might be different in different countries. See w:WP:ATDAB and the example of Elevator/Lift. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I think they are different things. In the UK some pubs had separate rooms, basically separated along class lines; the saloon bar (sometimes lounge bar) was up-market while the public bar had only basic appointments and intended for workers. They often had separate entrances. So I have no problem with Western saloons but perhaps Saloons should be a disambiguation page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Pubs, it's a very common description of something in UK English that is not a 'bar' (though pubs have bars and there are drinks establishments called bars in UK English too). I'm sure 'Bars' can mean something similar in American English, but as others have pointed out, Bars can be other things too, so I'm surprised it isn't already disambiguated. Sionk (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's of interest, in American English, the word bar by itself can mean many things. Even when it's understood to be referring to a place related to drinks, it can mean an establishment whose primary business is selling alcoholic drinks, a part of a larger establishment where drinks are sold/prepared (such as a bar inside of a restaurant), or even a small area in a home or at a social function (such as a wedding) where alcohol is kept and where drinks are poured/mixed. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the pubs I've been in (which is admittedly few) have served both food and drinks. Is that not the case with all pubs? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the alternative meanings for bar mentioned by Auntof6 (except the establishment itself) would apply in the UK. An additional complication surrounds those occasions when "bar" is used to mean the establishment. For instance a typical British gay bar would be a nightclub, and would emphatically not be a pub. So in the UK, gay bars are not seen as a subset of pubs. I'd imagine that in the US, gay bars are seen as a subset of bars? Similar issues will surround the other types of bar which exist in the UK, like cocktail bars and wine bars.
I'd suggest some of the renames proposed above are incorrect for UK usage: The drinking venue within a ship would be a bar, while things like stools and counters are bar (not pub) furniture.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nilfanion, Auntof6, Crouch, Swale, and Sionk: I realize the different names for alcohol drinking establishments are not synonymous. It's obvious that they have different meanings. But those differences vary greatly from place to place. I ackowledge that most people would not necessary think of certain types of "alcohol-drinking establishments" as "public houses/pubs" but unless we can accept "pubs" a catch-all term, then we need a different base category, either Category:Alcohol drinking establishments or Category:Pubs and bars. Night club-style places might dominate for "gay bars" but the term en:Gay bars is surely not limited to that definition, in the US or the UK. And surely the term "bar" in "gay bar", "wine bar" or "cocktail bar" refers to the whole place, not the drinking counter or a place for drinking within a larger location like a cruise ship. For the reasons stated above, it doesn't make sense to categorize these places by name, unless we want a multiple name category trees for each language on earth. Right now we have
And that doesn't seem to bother anyone, because everyone knows that, despite variations, pubs and bars have the same base meaning. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nightclubs and pubs are definitely distinct concepts. A gay bar is typically a nightclub, but might be something else. Having the generic gay bar category in both is problematic, as each individual establishment is one or the other. Ultimately a pub is a class of establishment, and a bar is a different class of establishment. The set union of "pub in en-gb" and "bar in en-us" is not "pubs" and is not "bars".
With regards to the furniture, that tree makes perfect sense in UK terms: A pub contains a bar, which is either a room or a distinct area in a larger room, and that is where the bar furniture is located.
Whatever the outcome of this I have a strong dislike for a combination term like "pubs and bars". That just begs for people to create the two obvious and natural subcategories, does not really capture everything in a strict sense and so is not a stable long term solution. I can live with pubs as the top-level category, but it needs to be treated with caution. And it needs to respect regional variation in the country-level categories.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that one is the typical US term and the other is the typical UK term for the same concept, as is the case with soda/pop etc. The problem is bars are a subtly different concept to pubs. A better analog might be something like "conifers" and "evergreens". To residents of the UK, its likely the trees they think of for either grouping happen to belong to both, but that doesn't mean the terms are interchangeable.
Same is true for bars/pubs and that is because both "pub" in en-gb and "bar" in en-us relate to specific aspects of their national cultures. They are not synonyms needing a single category, but are two heavily overlapping aspects of a broader concept.
The various similar concepts in other countries are not identical to either of the two English language terms. There is nothing wrong with having categories for "pubs in the UK" and "bars in the US", and the same is true for the appropriate local terms in other countries. They describe well-defined specific concept in those nations. However, a category like "pubs in Saudi Arabia" is dubious. Instead of trying to shoehorn them all into the same box, ignoring the subtle differences, just go to the higher level concept. We should embrace the differences between different nations, and acknowledge that a German gasthaus is different to an Irish pub. Category:Drinking establishments is fine.
To amplify that, calling a typical bar in NYC a "pub" would seem unnatural to Americans (what's a pub or isn't that one of those English/Irish-themed places?). It would also seem unnatural to a Brit (that's not a pub!). The same is true for calling a pub in London a "bar", it would seem wrong to both a resident Brit and a visiting American.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some bars are pubs. Some pubs are bars. That is not the same as a 1:1 correspondence. That is reinforced by your Seattle link, which implies some bars in Seattle are pubs and some are not. And what is wrong with having the already existing global term (drinking establishments) and appropriate regional names?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Establishments that serve alcoholic drinks? Establishments that primarily serve alcoholic drinks (to rule out general restaurants, for example)? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 11
IMO just "drinking establishment" is fine, its implicit that the primary purpose is to serve drink, as opposed to a restaurant which is primarily about food. The non-alcoholic aspect of this is a bit irrelevant, as a bar that only serves non-alcoholic drinks is still a bar and as such is still highly related to its alcoholic equivalents. And almost every place that sells alcoholic drinks will also sells non-alcoholic ones. Therefore, don't waste time over-complicating it :)
Appropriate regional terms can be used to avoid that clunky title. I note that in the US the phrase "bars and restaurants" appears well understood, and often has some sort of legal basis (such as the 51% law in Texas). That would suggest that in the US, "bar" may be a suitable term for all places that sell drinks and are not restaurants.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Pubs as is. Visually, pubs are - at least in Britain - very different to bars, i.e. very traditional, with old wooden floors and furniture and brick walls, sometimes also with gardens. Pubs also have an emphasis on serving pints of beer (rather than cocktails and other fancy drinks found in bars). Bars are open later, don't admit children and generally have louder music. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Category:Bars and Category:Pubs. en:Bar is a broad term for all commercial places selling beverages for on-premises consumption. Pubs are more specific to British cultural influence. The exact meaning and inference of both words will vary widely based on local customs, laws, and commercial interests, but Category:Bars as the broad category, and Category:Pubs for the British-styled definition as provided on that category seem fine to me to keep as is. Josh (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to keep a separate Bars category for the drinking places then I'd still suggest renaming to a qualified term to avoid confusion with the other types of bars. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, "pubs" are a subset of "bars" (as seen in France), just with a British (or Germanic) style, and we expect to be able to drink a choice of good beers there. Pubs are normally only indoor with a "cosy" ambiance (though they also may have terraces outdoor, open with good weather conditions). Both bars and pubs may serve food (including takeovers and fastfood in cartons, not just on a normal plate). Bars vary a lot in terms of space; they are not necessarily buildings, they may just be a dedicated place where we can find drink sometimes limited to just a piece of furniture or equipment, and bars don't necessarily have personal to serve you, they may be in self-service (see "mini" bars in hotels). They can be cabans on a beach. Or just installed in private homes, they are not necessarily commercial "establishments" (you may find bars in associations or workplaces, even if you don't find alcohol, with just some equipement in self-service, sometimes a table and maybe some chairs to sit down, and you may have to wash the glasses/cups/spoons/plates and tables yourself. So bars are not a subset of "drinking establishments", though "pubs" (that are a subset of "bars") are establishments (but also not necessarily commercial). Whever you find food or not in bars or pubs is independant. If you find food, they qualify as "restaurants", and "pubs" or "bars" that serve food commercially are called "brasseries" (very near from commercial "pubs", except that the English cosy style is not required, and you must be able to be served on table; this is not always the case with English "pubs", that don't necessarily have individual tables, just a "bar" in front of servers, the rest of the room may be for drinking in standup with your glass in the hand, or far dancing and listening music). You may or may not find music played in pubs and bars (by artists playing live, with a scene or an instrument like in "piano-bars", or with a DJ, or just a radio). So in concusion, all "pubs" are "bars", all "pubs" (but not all "bars") are "establishments". Not all pubs or bars are restaurants. All brasseries (like also fastfoods) are restaurants (the difference being the form of service for all these restaurants, but all may include takeaway service, while brassseries must include a service on table). It is then impossible to merge all these categories, they are clearly not equivalent. verdy_p (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just noticed that this discussion has been open since April 2018, and my comment above was the only contribution in almost a year. I suggest this discussion be Closed unless there is a counter argument that leaving it open is likely to generate more discussion leading to improvements in categorization. Both "Category:Pubs" and "Category:Bars" have "see also" notes to each other, and both are subsets of "Category:Drinking establishments" and "Category:Alcohol culture". This seems appropriate. As discussed above, definitions of the two terms seem to have various different nuances depending on location and culture. IMO we can wrap this discussion up, keeping both "Pubs" and "Bars" categories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the two subcats: Neither "Hungarians" nor "people of Italy" are ethnic groups. As nationality, ethnicity are highly conflictive and complex concepts, we should better find a less controversial name for this cat. E4024 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these is an issue about this category, but about what is included in it. I agree that "people of Italy" is dubious. "Hungarians" can refer either to an ethnic group or to the people of the modern country of Hungary. If it's meant in the former sense, it belongs here. - Jmabel ! talk15:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This continues to be a complex subject. I placed a referenced definition of mill, refinery and factory on: en:Beet sugar factory. Even so, I am not completely sure yet. Definitions have changed over time. In the past, many beet sugar factories did not refine their raw sugar, but in the United States all sugar factories now do refine their own sugar. The concept of refining also seems to have a meaning depending on location. In rich countries, only white sugar is considered to have been refined. Poor countries also seem to consider plantation white or turbinado sugar to have been refined. Therefore, a modern cane sugar mill/factory seems to be called a mill or factory depending on what is produces, even though modern cane mills and factories are very much the same in a technical sense. As a consequence, the western world has cane sugar mills and beet sugar factories, and poorer countries have cane sugar factories.
However, the distinction between refinery and factory is simple. I do not know of an expert reference that calls a facility that uses sugar beet or sugar cane as raw material a sugar refinery. On the other hand, both a beet sugar factory and a cane sugar mill/factory use those as raw material.Grieg2 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose to close this discussion@Themightyquill, DarwIn, Ruff tuff cream puff, and Estopedist1:
I want to close this discussion. It started with an idea to add or move to Category:Sugarcane mills (machinery) in order to make a distinction between sugar mills and sugar factories. Then there was an option to distinguish between sugar cane processing and sugar beet processing. Finally Darwin correctly noted that a factory is not the same as a refinery. However, the result is that this stale discussion blocks actions to correct the categorization.Grieg2 (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine with me. I looks like I jumped the gun and made changes before initiating discussion, or before letting it finish. Feel free to fix it however makes sense. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A facility that uses (or can use) sugar beet or sugar cane as raw material to produce sugar, is either a sugar mill or a sugar factory. This is often subject to local use of the term, or the exact process used.
A sugar refinery is a refining facility that cannot make sugar using sugar beet or sugar cane as raw material.
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The current system of categorisation for rivers and streams has only minimal description Rivers are large flowing bodies of water and Here are streams, creeks, brooks...... The assumption being that the Category:Rivers only includes named rivers (River X), (Y River) etc., and that Category:Streams contains all other creeks, brooks etc.
Discussions regarding UK rivers here and at Wikipedia here, reveals that this distinction between rivers and streams is poorly defined. Using nomenclature only causes issues, as larger streams can be longer, have a greater drainage area or flow than smaller rivers.
Large rivers such as the Nile or Amazon are not in dispute, but any attempt at distinction between smaller rivers and larger streams becomes unworkable very quickly (see here for some US examples).
It is proposed that the Rivers and Streams categories (and their sub-cats) are combined under the Rivers category (which has been the approach on en Wikipedia since 2016), or some other name such as Natural watercourses. Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I concur with the infeasibility of defining at a useful set of distinguishing characteristics for small river categories. I have decades of professional experience working as a field engineer assessing natural runoff features in areas of various geology, precipitation, and snowmelt patterns within the United States. Aside from the local dialects referring to similarly sized drainage feature as either a stream, a creek, a brook, a bayou, a swale, a draw, a gulch, or an arroyo, there is a tendency to name features in accordance with their size relative to other local drainage features. The largest local drainage in an arid region is often called a river, while drainage features carrying greater flow through moist terrain are called brooks or creeks. Catchment basin area cannot be readily determined for drainage features in flat terrain or those fed by lava tubes or limestone caves. If flow criteria were to be a differentiating factor, there would be problems deciding whether average flow, or average surface flow (neglecting subsurface flow), or average rainy season (or meltwater) flow, or peak flow should be used. Average flow is available only for drainages with a long history of measurement and subject to changes through consumptive water use or climate change, while peak flow is largely statistical approximation depending on the frequency of peak flows, and the likelihood they will destroy gaging systems. Thewellman (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging per User:Jokulhlaup and User:Thewellman. There is no clear boundary between a "river" and a "stream", and assigning one based on basin size, flow, stream order, etc., would be both arbitrary and unworkable, while a distinction based on local nomenclature arbitrarily forces images of objectively similar physical features into separate categories. --TimK MSI (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. I don't think there is an issue with just calling them all "rivers". I also want to point out that stream order specifically is unworkable. The categories are for the whole length of the river, from source to mouth. The headwaters will often have a stream order of one, but are still part of the major river.
Thanks for the ping, things have just got busy in RL at the moment, but I should have time later next week to see what is involved--Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
::@Themightyquill: given the extent of the changes that this CfD will generate, I think it would be advisable to close the discussion formally. As the nominator I don't think I should do that, are you able to close it yourself, or should I ask at COM:AN instead ?--Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot agree on merging everything into "River" is the right way, but may have weak support if it was "Rivers and streams" with a good explanation on how to ensure we don't end up with a crowded category. Big issue we will see is having Rivers, Creeks, Streams, Brooks etc all in a single category down to the state level for example. Interestingly Geographical Names Board of NSW give a very good description on Creeks, Rivers, Streams etc (sadly can't paste them due to Crown Copyright/CC-BY-ND-3.0) that it names and designates in NSW but would be similar in other Australian states and possibly some other countries. Bidgee (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would think sorting them geographically would prevent any unwanted overcrowding. Most creeks and streams can be separated down to the municipal level if necessary. Also, I don't think the descriptions at the link you cited are helpful at all. Stream is defined as "Small river, brook" and Rivulet is described as "Small stream". Those are definitions everyone knows, but they aren't good for categorizing anything since "small" is highly subjective. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To merge stream and river would be an oversimplification I think. It is a bit like deciding which plants are trees and which are shrubs or saplings. All trees start as saplings, but at some point, you cannot say exactly where, it changes from one to the other. One definition of a tree is that it is woody and you can climb it. Similarly one could conceive of a rough definition that distinguishes rivers from creeks. A river can sweep you away, for instance, but a creek usually doesn't. Or you need a bridge supported by pillars to cross a river, but at a creek some covered culverts will do. Most languages I suspect clearly distinguish between the two. In German for instance: Bach and Fluss. And there are some drainage lines that don't fall easily into these two. Desert wadis that have irregular flow: sometimes rivers, sometimes only a dry gully. And rivulets that tumble or trickle down from steep slopes may also be irregular: neither a creek or a river. JMK (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so, we need a category that encompasses all "long and narrow flowing bodies of water".
here i offer a non english speaking perspective. in non-english speaking countries you more rarely find such things named "creek" "stream" etc. we just call them all rivers when we have to translate their names.
so i think, any use of those synonyms of river is due more to local and historical reasons, rather than a rigid scientific objective definition. and even if such definitions exist, they often vary across different countries.
my suggestion:
use "rivers" as the overall parent cat.
only in certain countries where the usage of other synonyms are prevalent, there can be "creeks of the united kingdom", etc.
only if their names bear those words "creek"/"stream"/... should they be categorised under those specific cats. we dont make arbitrary definitions based on length/width/volume... but only their english names.
but all those categories with the synonyms in titles should be categorised under for example "rivers of the united kingdom".
@Bidgee: At this moment, the category Category:Creeks has a description: „Here are streams with word Creek in its name.“ Such specific scope make sense only for English-language countries, and the category name should be not confusing (Category:Streams named "creek"?). However, many of contained files and subcategories don't meet the description. Generally, Universality principle of categorization requieres to have category names universal; identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization. All non-English countries have to be reconciled with universal English terminology even though their national conceptualization can be different – thus also English-language countries should suppress their local language specifics and yield to universal terms, if possible. Naturally, distinctions between various types of watercourses are soft and blurred and can pervade and overlap. --ŠJů (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing the discussion with no consensus, keeping both category trees separate. Although many have supported the proposal to include streams under rivers, the arguments against the proposal are hard to refute. So whether a watercourse is a river or a stream is now up to the individual users. Watercourses is an unambiguous term and it may be used instead of rivers or streams. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Deleted by admin Taivo. --E4024 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete As there is no more file in these categories I created for files which have been deleted in the between Pippobuono (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment Really, I stopped using Category:Unused personal files when I noticed that Category:Personal images and its subcategories exists. I found myself looking at a lot of personal images that were being used on Wikipedia pages which were eligible for (speedy) deletion: technically the image isn't unused at that moment, so putting it in Category:Unused personal files felt inappropriate. -Apocheir (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Strong support The primary meaning if any is the vehicle, I would note that this was at Category:Van, Turkey until it was cut and pasted here last April. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC) I would note that Category:Batman is a DAB and the city is at Category:Batman (city) (even though there is Category:Births in Batman, Turkey) so the proposed "Van (city)" would match that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Info Link to discussion before it has been archived: [1]. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 17:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. @Takeaway: Probably should be DAB--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
--Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: The two images currently in Category:Charter trams in Japan both depict privately chartered trams, so would not really fit appropriately in Category:Tourist tram services. --DAJF (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
