Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in January 2018.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/01.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2018-01.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Periparus ater (illustrations)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/12/Category:Asteraceae botanical illustrations.
Bunce reredos

Move back to Category:Periparus ater in art (disputed move), several of these images are artworks, not illustrations. If necessary, the category can be split. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to choose? What if we keep Category:Periparus ater (illustrations) as a sub-category of Category:Paridae illustrations, but put Category:Periparus ater (illustrations) in Category:Periparus ater in art along with other artworks? So:
Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me "Periparus ater in art" is the better category name, as I mainly want to throw the artworks like statues and comics in a subcategory. I don't want to find the anatomy files in this category, as they are interesting for wikipedia articles for a completely different reason. The argument with consistency is in some way nonsense as I had one day made up "in art"-type categories for all species which had enough artworks in it and someone changed all of them. --Kersti (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kersti Nebelsiek: I don't think it's just consistency but the very logic of categorization. Anatomical & zoological illustrations (etc) are art, just as paintings and sketches are art, so art should be the base category. But there needs to be some link between Category:Category:Paridae illustrations and another with Category:Category:Tits in art. Following the style of Category:Cyanistes caeruleus in art‎ and Category:Cyanistes caeruleus (illustrations)‎ makes sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me an art or illustrations category in which are anatomy files is a problem, if there is no anatomy category in the species category in which they are as well. If i see an Illustratiions category with files showing eggs, young birds, anatomical details etc. I start to make um a category for eggs or young birds or anatomy, as I think if I make up a Wikipedia article I would have a problem to find it if it is in the art category. For the Wikipedia author the question if something is art or a photo is almost irrelevant and the question what is on the picture is the main point. --Kersti (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then, if I understand correctly, you are opposed to the whole tree under Category:Illustrations of animals and Category:Zoological illustrations. That's fine, but it's not appropriate to make such a decision in a category discussion about Periparus ater. Perhaps you might take that suggestion to the vilage pump? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I said. It's more complicated. I said in the moment when there is an "illustrations" or "in art" category eggs and anatomy files which are in it need an eggs or anatomy category visible in the main category to be findable. Therefore I would start illustrations categories when the others already exist or when the main category is too big and it is therefore a good idea to start all these categories. It's a question of timing. --Kersti (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fossilized discussion. What is it with these parentheses that make them so attractive? :) I don't see the appeal. They are generally unnecessary. I sort of get why they're used in the illustrations categories, but why e.g. "Category:Periparus ater (being ringed)"? Commons is clearly suffering from parenthesitis.

"Illustrations of Periparus ater" should be the preferred format, but it can sometimes make meta(-ish) categories with many similar subcategories difficult to navigate (Category:Paridae illustrations in this case), so it is probably better to use the "Periparus ater illustrations" format, which means the same thing as the "of" construction. It's better to just have the category title say what the category contains, without complicating things. The parentheses don't add anything useful, and I don't think it's a good idea to use the same format for both disambiguation and subcategorizing.

See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/12/Category:Asteraceae botanical illustrations.

Sinigh (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baby carriers

[edit]

This category and its description are unclear. Is it for all means of baby transportation, or for those devices which "carry a baby or small child on the body of an adult"? Why is the word "baby car" used in many of the sub-categories? I fear that may simply be a direct translation of "kinderwagon" from the German. Note that Category:Prams and Category:Strollers redirect here. I'd suggest creating Category:Prams as a sub-category and renaming all the "baby car" categories accordingly. And make Category:Strollers a category for strollers, with redirects from the British Category:Push chairs and Category:Baby buggies, as well as appropriate redirects from Category:Perambulators and Category:Baby carriages. Themightyquill (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could link Category:Infant automobile seats in the category description? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're still "baby carriers" though, no? I recall seeing people moving their babies around from while still inside their car seat. -- OlEnglish (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When have these ever been called "baby cars"? And why does Commons keep inventing such neologistic terms?
Common naming for the UK would be "pram", as a contraction of "perambulator", but that's a very local term. I would suggest what I believe to be the common US term: "baby carriage". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would like to see "Baby Carriages" for any baby carrier with wheels to include prams, strollers, pushchairs, buggies. Then perhaps we can leave Baby Carriers for non wheeled devices such as baby slings, front packs, back packs, baby boards etc. But what about all those Baby Car subcategories (by decade, by country)? Thats a lot of Category renaming? Can it be done en maase? perhaps an Admin can help?--Headlock0225 (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. I've started moving baby carriers into baby slings. I think the issue might partially be en-GB versus en-US - baby sling is a generic term in the UK for any kind of carrier, but in the U.S. I think sling has a more specific connotation and the generic term baby carrier is more common. After the move I propose we redirect this category to baby sling. Mvolz (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvolz, Andy Dingley, OlEnglish, and Headlock0225: I've moved all the strollers/prams to Category:Baby carriages but perhaps we could use Category:Baby carriers as a general category for carriages, slings, and backpack-type carriers? Or it could be moved to Catory:Baby carrier equipment or Category:Baby carrying equipment? I'm thinking something for Category:Bike trailers designed to carry children might also be useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merging prams into baby carriages looks good. We need something overall for "child transporters" but I'd (personally) see "baby carriers" as more like the sling or backpack devices, where there's a sense of the baby being "carried" by the carrier. A subset of bike trailers would be good too, although many of those are multi-functional child / cargo carriers. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Category:Baby transport to match en:Baby transport as a subsection of Category:Transport of children? Or just use Category:Transport of children? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Children are bigger than babies. They have their own legs, they get on schoolbuses on their own, they might even ride bikes on their own. So I think we have to separate. "Babies" (for our purpose here) have no independence, as either physical movement, or independence. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: many thanks - looking good!--Headlock0225 (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: True, I certainly see your point, but I'm not sure it's workable. Many baby carriers are also used to transport toddlers and small children. Does my baby carriage instantly become a child carriage the day I turn 2? Moreover, Category:Infants is a subcategory of Category:Children so Category:Transport of children should be inclusive of babies. - - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusive is OK, but I think it's worth the sub-category. I can put a doll or a dog into a baby carriage and it's still a baby carriage. If a small child is still using it, then that doesn't change the device itself, nor its naming from its primary function. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I was more thinking about an umbrella stroller, mostly used for young children rather than babies. Backpack-style child carriers (for hikers, say) can equally be designed for older children in mind. I totally see your concern, I'm still wary of trying to divide the two. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC) ~[reply]

Category:Tiaras

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Tiaras.

Most of the sub-categories of Category:Tiaras disambiguates "tiaras" with (diadems), yet we have a different category for Category:Diadems. en:Wikipedia says "diadem" can mean either tiara or Category:Fillets (headbands), so perhaps Category:Diadems should just be a disambiguation page? Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new, but I want to say, that "Tiara" in German traditionally means only the Papal Tiara, not a 'Diadem' for a Lady or Princess (although recently in TV I heard somebody say 'Tiara' instead of 'Diadem' under the strong influence of english and american language and culture. But this is only most recently). Indeed, this are two completely different things. Greetings,--Marie Adelaide (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marie Adelaide: Welcome! That's actually very helpful in explaining the confusion. Indeed the different wikipedia articles don't link up well. As you say, de:Tiara links to en:Papal tiara. en:Diadem links to de:Diadem but they don't seem to refer to the exact same thing. en:Tiara links to de:Tiara (Altertum) but they seem to refer to totally different things (Maybe de:Tiara (Altertum) should link to en:Fillet (clothing)?) Maybe we should just have Category:Female crowns or Category:Women's crowns and avoid the ambiguous terminology of tiara and diadem? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Themightyquill, You are right, there is some confusion with the links between the German and the English Articles.
(Attention, this is an error: "1a: In reality en:Diadem means the same as (and should link to) de:Tiara (Altertum).")
Themightyquill, I'm sorry, but I have to correct myself. Unfortunately, this is wrong ! I don't know the corresponding article in English for de:Tiara (Altertum), which is a type of crown in Persian Antiquity, similar to a Phrygian cap... This all is really difficult and quite a confusion.
1b: In reality it seems, that there is no corresponding article in English to de:Tiara (Altertum), but in other languages they exist !--Marie Adelaide (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]
2: en:Tiara should link to de:Diadem (but that German Article is not very good, but tells something about the history, what is interesting, and is in reality the same subject as in en:Diadem).
3: I'm very sorry, but your idea to link de:Tiara (Altertum) to en:Fillet (clothing) is wrong (unfortunately; please see under point 1).
4: I think one should primarily separate the 'Papal Tiara' as own category (or does it exist already...?).
5: I have to admit, that I have no or only very little experience here on Wiki-Commons to make a decision about the categories here. Perhaps it's a good idea to make a Category:Female crowns to avoid the ambiguous terminology of tiara and diadem?
6: Maybe it could also be helpful if one would make a reference (or instruction) from 'Tiara' to 'Papal tiara' ?
I hope this was a little help and many greetings,--Marie Adelaide (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we put tiaras under female crowns, wouldn't we lose the distinction between actual crowns (those intended for monarchs and their consorts) and lesser sorts of headwear? For example, we have Category:Consort crowns of the United Kingdom (which is at least mostly women's crowns and includes categories for two specific crowns) and two different ones of Queen Victoria (Category:State crown of Queen Victoria and Category:Small diamond crown of Queen Victoria). I'm not sure how to define the difference. Crowns are often bigger, more like hats, and worn only by monarchs and consorts. Tiaras are usually more headband-shaped and can be worn by non-monarchs. (The rules may vary in different places.) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This definition is absolutely correct. A crown (in German: 'Krone') is bigger and for monarchs, a real symbol of kingdom, power, etc., it is or can be used in coronation ceremonies (but not always), and can be for men=kings, imperators or other princes, or for women=queens, etc., but in reality was mostly for men = kings). A tiara (in German: Diadem) is smaller, "headband-shaped and can be worn by non-monarchs" - it is purely feminine (exception : antiquity). In the first Empire-era (Napoleon I; begin of the 19th century) the tiara (German: Diadem) became so important in the gala-court robes. In fact, every aristocratic woman could and had to wear a tiara (diadem) in certain circumstances (as balls or ceremonies). Me too, I thought about the problem, if a tiara (Diadem) is really a crown...? Greetings,--Marie Adelaide (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marie Adelaide: The German translation is not especially useful, because we're talking about English names for categories which, as we've established, don't match up with German names. @Auntof6: That might be how we tend to think of crowns vs tiaras, but I don't know that it actually fits with reality. This is a crown and so is this. Current subcategoies of Category:Crowns include Category:Flower crowns and Category:Bridal crowns. We already have Category:Royal crowns so they are already separated off. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks it is incredibly shortsighted, obnoxious and obtuse to just lump the modern tiara together with all ancient depictions of royal diadems? The latter are symbols of Achaemenid and then Hellenistic Greek kingship exclusively. The headdress worn by Kate Middleton and the modern British family bears little resemblance to the cloth (and sometimes gold and jewel-encrusted) headbands worn by ancient Greek kings and queens of the Hellenistic world, let alone your average tiara worn at modern-day weddings around the world. The ancient Greek variety deserves its own damn category if you ask me and these two subjects should definitely be segregated so that it is easy for users to navigate and explore each of them separately. The diadem as it was worn in ancient times is also tangentially related to the modern tiara, which doesn't convey the same symbolic meaning of royal authority, as proven by its casual use by brides at weddings, ballerinas in the performing arts, and even little girls dressed up for Halloween as fantasy princesses and such. The royal diadem in ancient times was considered a sacred symbol that commoners and even nobility weren't even allowed to touch with their hands, let alone wear on their heads, and legally such an act was punishable by death. I don't think we should just flippantly mash together these two radically different items and concepts, not without a better justification than "herr derr derr, the look loosely similar to me, derp". Seriously, folks. For those who don't appreciate the differences between the two, here's a little light reading for you: Pfrommer, Michael (2001). Greek Gold from Hellenistic Egypt. Los Angeles: Getty Publications (Getty Museum Studies on Art by the J Paul Getty Trust). Skip to pages 22-23. You're welcome. PericlesofAthens (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PericlesofAthens: I don't think your apparent anger is warranted here. No one wants to mix up distinct types of objects. Just the opposite - we want the distinctions to be clear in the category names so that other people don't mix up the image by accident. If you can suggest clear category names to differentiate, that would be great. "Modern tiaras" isn't very specific, but something like Category:Diadems of Ancient Greece or Category:Royal fillets of Ancient Greece would indeed be useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You basically answered your own question there. That being said, your two suggestions sound fine to me and I would support the creation of those categories. PericlesofAthens (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PericlesofAthens: I'm not sure which question you are referring to. Those two category names were an either/or in my mind. Do you imagine we need both? What would go in each one? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The anger was absolutely warranted. It was and remains nonsense to lump modern female tiaras with ancient male diadems, apparently under the influence of non-English languages. Of course they should have been separated long ago. — LlywelynII 15:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: You are apparently an expert, so I would urge you to separate the images into distinct and clearly named categories so that no lumping occurs. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First bit done. Welcome. — LlywelynII 11:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill, Marie Adelaide, Auntof6, PericlesofAthens, and LlywelynII: where are we in terms of being able to resolve and close this? Can someone summarize? - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: It's another case of "Things called X" because diadems is used by different people to mean different things. In this case, Category:Diadems is theoretically being used to denote ancient diadems, but it's ambiguous because the word "diadems" is also used to refer to Category:Tiaras which look similar in some cases but apparently are entirely different. Moreover, diadems of the ancient Greek variety can also refer to Category:Fillets (headbands). I think a disambiguation seems to be in order, either with a disambig page or a category rename to something less ambiguous, but I'm not sure what to suggest. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Things named after Avalon

[edit]

It's not clear which "Avalon" the things here are supposedly named after. It could be the Avalon of Arthurian legend, but we don't have a category for that -- Category:Avalon is a disambiguation category. In any case, there's only one entry here, so I'm not sure this category is worth keeping. Auntof6 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: A user moved this category to another name in an attempt to clarify, but I have moved it back: not only because such moves break discussion links, but because I'm not sure we know that everything called "Avalon" was named for the same thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added categories only whose origins of names are clear in the Wikipedia articles. We should remove the categories whose origins of names are different or unknown.--Morio (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree. @BMacZero, Morio, and Auntof6: but should we delete the nominated category, once Category:Things named after Avalon (legendary island) is established properly (currently a redirect)?--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: I would delete it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm, unhelpfully, indifferent about leaving a redirect. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hijabs by country

[edit]

"Hijabs by country" is not very meaningful, IMHO. We should move this to Women wearing hijabs by country, Girls wearing hijabs by country (if there are enough girl pics) and Old women wearing hijabs by country cats. E4024 (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current situation is acceptable. As you implied, hijabs can be worn also by mannequins and probably by men also (not normal, but possible). Current system (with red links):

--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hell

[edit]

Should be renamed to Hell (mythology) or so. There are cities that are called Hell and "hell" means in German "bright" Hiddenhauser (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Hell" is perfectly rules-complying. Category are always in English. If someone knows the meaning of "mythology", knows the meaning of "hell" in English too. Round bracket are used only in the pages whose title is not the main meaning. So the rule is Category:Hell for the main meaning and Category:Hell, Michigan style, or round brackets, for the others categories. Moreover does we have proof of problems?. Someone put images of cities or of something just bright?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Categories are always english, but not every user is aware of it. For example, there where images tagged with Hell but meant was Hell, Norway. With an addition the meaning would be absolute clear.--Hiddenhauser (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support disambiguation per nom, Commons is not just English, Commons should be of least bias to languages and water bright is surely a more important topic that hell. Also as pointed out there are other things that "hell" means even in English. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle Eastern clothing

[edit]

What is the obsession with Middle East? Are we going to add people with "Occidental" dressing photographed in the Middle East here? For example, the File:Layal Abboud - Plaza Palace Ceremony - Beirut - July 2015 - Lebanon 04.jpg? Beirut, Lebanon may be considered Middle East, right? Or if we have pics taken in Piccadilly Sq with people in chador or shalwar-kameez what? (BTW is Pakistan or India Middle East?) Shall we ask people passports? The dressing of Lawrence of Arabia, will that be in this cat or in Category:Arab clothing or in Category:Islamic male dress? Do males wear dress? (I found one! :) Is/was he -or the actor- muslim? I know that in the Ottoman Empire Jews or many Christians went around in the same clothing with muslims. Now what? I think when we find "different" something (in this case the clothing) at someone else (no, I did not say "the other", I'm a simple truck driver, no social sciences here :) we tend to categorize too much. My 2 cents. --E4024 (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to do something with this category? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • عکاسی آماتور ŘŻŘą خیابان های ایران شهرتهران 2
    عکاسی آماتور در خیابان های ایران شهرتهران 2
  • Ahvaz edit-a-thon by Mardetanha (107) (cropped)
    Ahvaz edit-a-thon by Mardetanha (107) (cropped)

I have reverted some edits by the user who is insisting on (I will write in Spanish so they may understand better) tratando de enajenar parte del mundo, o sea intentar crear "el otro". I am now reverting their edits, because of BRD. They do avoid discussions -in this case almost for three years- but impose their choices. There is no place to personal impositions here. If an edit war begins, it will certainly not be my fault. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not nonsense, because enwiki also has Category:Middle Eastern clothing. Before deleting/upmerging this category in Commons, we should examine the situation in enwiki, getting also more input--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic female dress

[edit]

Please accept my apologies for my ignorance but I think dress cannot include headgear or burkini (swimsuit) or other things which are not dress. I'm sure these muslims even have special underwear! Where to add that? If dress is synonymous with clothing (it seems so by http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/clothing) why do we use "clothing" in other cats? Excuse me for all these stupid questions, as I said I'm not very knowledgeable and my English sucks. I'm only trying to learn some categorization here, which I see very important for real life. E4024 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename or separate to Women wearing Islamic clothes and Islamic clothes for women. "Female" may include any kind of animal, and we have plenty of images of dogs and cats wearing clothes. "Clothing" is clearer in definition than "dress". --FĂŚ (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning with Category:Female clothing, the mother of all female clothing cats, we have a quite general use of the word "female", exclusively for human beings, for clothing cats in Commons. I hope the relation to a certain religion did not make you remember animals here. I respect your experience in Commons but you could also try a little bit more not to hurt people's feelings while making your contributions. I say this because I tend to believe your good faith. If you avoid an unnecessary reply I will take it as you understood my concern and all is well. --E4024 (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. I guess, that firstly to be renamed to Category:Islamic female clothing to mirror enwiki en:Category:Islamic female clothing--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mechanical tools

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Mechanical tools.

This category, plus its subcategory Category:Mechanical hand tools, just seem to contain random collections of tools. I don't see why they need to exist. Pinging everbody who edited the categories, and this categories talk page, in case it can be explained. @WikipediaMaster, Tano4595, Ingolfson, DALIBRI, and Andy Dingley: @Rocket000, Chris 73, W!B:, Bdk, and Ocdp: @Djr13, Hiddenhauser, SpiderMum, Clusternote, and Themightyquill: . --ghouston (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be some container categories here, but these aren't great names and their inclusion criteria are unclear. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:Tools by function is best. --ghouston (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your opinion as a great first step to solve this issue. --Clusternote (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These unclear categorization seems to be a reflection of the mis-unification of interwiki-links currently seen on Wikidata's "Category:Mechanical hand tools". For example, on English Wikipedia (enwiki), "w:en:Category:Mechanical hand tools" has only an upper category "w:en:Category:Hand tools", and no equivalent is exist corresponding to Commons' "Category:Mechanical tools"; And on Korean Wikipedia (kowiki), "w:ko:Category:기계공구" means "Machine tools", and its only an upper category is "w:ko:Category:공구" (i.e. "Tools"). These provisionally unificated interwiki-links are clearly mismatched on the viewpoint of notion's hierarchical level, each other. Same things are also seen between other languages.
In order to solve these confusion lying on inter-language taxonomies, it may be necessary to find the standardized technical term dictionary for the specialized field, although it may be a very troublesome task. Or, as a more simple and robust solution, I recommend the massive sub-categorization work of each media/sub-category by the empirical classification-methods (for example: notion-level, applied-fields, etc). --Clusternote (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and comments on the talk page of en:Category_talk:Mechanical hand tools, from 2005, 2008 and 2016, complain that the category isn't properly defined, but with no answer. Meta categories are problematic enough when dealing with English alone, just because language is irregular. I doubt that Category:Programming tools and Category:Management tools should be grouped with physical tools, but it really depends on how "tool" is defined. --ghouston (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Literally, I suppose "mechanical" means any kind of machine, which is a very broad category (see Category:Machines), especially if you include simple machines. For me, "mechanical tools" suggests moving parts. So a handsaw or a hammer would not be mechanical, but a hand-powered drill would be. That said, I agree that most of the sub-categories here don't make sense. By that definition, there's nothing mechanical about several simple machines, metalworking tools‎, or woodworking tools. If we use that definition, we should specify it. If not, then maybe delete the category completely? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does a screwdriver have a moving part, because it's rotated when in use? Maybe there are only a few tools without a moving part, like anvils. If we say parts that move relative to each other, then I suppose chains have moving parts? Some of the simple machines don't have moving parts either. In any case, it's going to be a vast category, and it should be renamed to something like Category:Tools with moving parts, but it doesn't seem particularly useful. You may as well categorize tools by colour or mass. --ghouston (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, something that can be moved is different than something with moving parts. A standard screw driver, like a standard hammer or handsaw (or a rock for that matter), does not have moving parts. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to add to this is that the category is currently in Category:Tools by type of power. "Mechanical" isn't really a type of power though. Maybe something like "hand cranked tools" would be, I don't know, but the specific type of mechanisms the tool itself uses or has doesn't really determine anything power wise. Like no one as far as I know would consider a hand-cranked ice cream maker a "powered tool" for making ice cream even though they use moving gears and are technically hand (really arm) powered. Not to derail my point or anything, but one could argue "hand powered" isn't really a type of power either (kinetic energy maybe?). At least not anymore then an image of a rock rolling down a hill would go in a category like "nature by type of power" or whatever.

I guess what I'm trying to convey is that the purpose and benefit of categorizing images can easily get lost in the sauce when things are categorized based on metaphysical concepts. Including in this instance. "Electricity" might be something that exists "in real life", but if something is a "type of power" or if it's even technically "powered" in the first place is a 100% circular thought experiment. Same goes for this whole "mechanical" thing. Not that I'm necessarily sure what to do with all that, but it is at least another data point as to why this whole category structure needs improving. Maybe I'll just Category:Tools by type of power from the category in absence of any better options. Who knows though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia category was mentioned above, but people seem equally mystified there: en:Category talk:Mechanical hand tools. In any case, nobody here seems to think that the Commons category is useful, so I guess we can delete it. --ghouston (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schulgeschichte (Gleiritsch)

[edit]

Could someone clarify the purpose of this category? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the dewp article, it seems to be something like "History of schools in Gleiritsch". Perhaps the correct name is Category:Historical schools in Gleiritsch or simply Category:Schools in Gleiritsch. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heads of the Turkish Armed Forces General Staff II.

[edit]

General Staff II? E4024 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • YazÄąm hatasÄą olmuş, kalÄącÄą olarak silinmesini istemek yerine Genelkurmay ikinci BaşkanÄą (ENG) olarak dĂźzenleyebilirsiniz. YÄąkÄącÄą değil yapÄącÄą olunuz Pivox (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are not deletion discussions. Please give some of your time to "learn" Commons before editing heavily. Whenever I have some time I may reply your accusations in detail, separately. BTW I'm the first user who approached you offering help in Commons and was not responded duly. --E4024 (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so easy to help you. To begin with, if you're trying to create a cat for the "Deputies" of the "Chiefs" of General Staff of Turkey, where did you find the "Heads"? You simply do something without thinking about it, and others should dedicate their time to correct you. Next time ask me or anybody else how to formulate a title before "implementing" (in other words "imposing") it and there will be less discussion. If you don't like me there are other Turkish-speaking people in Commons. --E4024 (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Begin "reading" the edit summaries before destroying the work of others; that way you may also take a step towards being "constructive" yourself. Also have a look at how many files I have uploaded or how many files I have categorized in Commons before talking about others being constructive. Sorry, people, for taking your time with these. --E4024 (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. The nominated category has invalid name, and should be something like "Second Chiefs of General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces". Probably Turkish users are not needed to solve this CFD (although I am pinging user:Mardetanha), but rather someone who knows military (maybe user:Sanandros). Also encyclopedists may have the knowledge (eg user:Themightyquill, user:Auntof6)--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This cat are the deputies of chief of staff see tr:Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri genelkurmay II. başkanları listesi. I don't speak turkish but this seems for me to be a word by word translation of the turkish term. But what I don't like is that they categorise the whole persons cat in this cat, thus violating modularity principle. For example File:Cevdet Sunay 1972.jpg show Sunay as president and not as deputy chief of staff.--Sanandros (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any particular knowledge about this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inversion

[edit]

A fuzzy idea to which a half of media files may have some relation. Note that Caps worn backwards is landed here but is missing in 180° rotation to where it arguably pertains. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caps worn backwards might be rotated at 179° or 181°? =) - Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Caps worn backwards / Category:Cap askew are, similar but different. --Benzoyl (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A better name might be something like "Things that are inverted" or "Things that are reversed". There are several things that are actually called inversion, and I've added them to this category. Maybe this one should be a disambiguation category. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. Yes, the nominated category should be DAB, same in enwiki en:inversion--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ruizanglada Paintings social matters

[edit]

To me it looks like not only this but all subcats of Category:Ruizanglada must be discussed for their peculiar titles. E4024 (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

== Hola. Hace aĂąos que no entro en ediciĂłn Wikipedia. Recibo mensaje sobre redefiniciĂłn de categorĂ­as. Hace aĂąos se tratĂł con persona de Wikipedia en lengua espaĂąola. Todo era correcto. Las categorĂ­as estaban escritas en EspaĂąol. Parece que despuĂŠs han sido traducidas automaticamente. Âż Esto es posible?... En espaĂąol decimos "temĂĄtica social"... QuizĂĄ la traducciĂłn mĂĄs correcta al inglĂŠs se "Social themes."

De cualquier forma si palabras en un idioma son traducidas automaticamente a otro idioma, siempre se generarán muchas discusiones... Provocará problemas en lugar de reducirlos. "Social themes." puede ser más correcto. Ok. User:RuizAnglada — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuizAnglada (talk • contribs) 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I haven't been in Wikipedia for years. I get a message about redefining categories. Years ago it was a person from Wikipedia in the Spanish language. Everything was correct. The categories were written in Spanish. It seems that afterwards they have been translated automatically. Is this possible? ... In Spanish we say "social themes" ... Perhaps the most correct translation into English is "Social themes." However, if words in one language are automatically translated into another language, it will always generate many discussions ... It will cause problems instead of reducing them. "Social themes." may be more correct. Okay.
translator: Google Translate via --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! These subcategories are like Wikipedia article parts. All to be upmerged into Category:Ruizanglada is easy, but probably not a good solution. Do we have similar cases with other artists?--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raqs Sharqi

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Belly dancers.

This cat should be renamed/moved to "Belly dance" as in EN:WP or "Belly dancing" as in the title of the page. E4024 (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is opposition, so don't move it. As a dancer who performs this dance on a near-professional level I object to the change. Raqs Sharqi is the name of the dance. Belly dance is a term also used for all sorts of dance that have nothing to do with its oriental origin, but more with male erotic fantasies. The page used to be called Raqs Sharqi as well. --Judithcomm (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been three weeks since I said that. I try to avoid to the maximum degree doing edits which may be considered controversial. I wish I could say that for everybody here. Having said that, I defend belly dancing, without being a belly dancer. (Well, I come from a country with many famous belly dancers though, including some men. In Turkey we also use -other than the Turkish words for "belly dancing", the term "oryantal", which means oriental. "Raqs Sharqi" is Arabic and you can sure use it in Arabic Wikipedia. This is Commons.) "Belly dance is a term also used for all sorts of dance that have nothing to do with its oriental origin" is not a convincing argument for me; sorry. We are one against one. Let's see what others say. --E4024 (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You uploaded File:Randa Kamel Egyptian Bellydancer 2007 1.jpg, File:Bellydancer Asmahan Cairo 2005 2.jpg etc and you oppose "belly dancing". Very interesting really... --E4024 (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Oriental dance, more commonly known als bellydance) I brought these parentheses -without touching them, except bolding- from User:Judithcomm's user page, where she tells us about her "areas of interest". Interesting, right? --E4024 (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some dancers solve this issue by naming their dance "Oriental bellydance" to distinguish from the Orientalist Hoochie coochie--Judithcomm (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raqs sharqi is by far the most precise term to discribe de dance in this category. Yes, sometimes I use the term 'bellydance' to denote my dance, but then immediately find myself explaining "No, I'm not a stripper, I don't do lapdances and it has nothing to do with prostitution or 'seducing the sultan in the hareem'". And if you look at some of the people who called themselves bellydancers at So You Think You Can Dance auditions or the way raqs sharqi is portrayed in western movies, you would think that making some snake-like moves and shaking a prominent part of your anatomy is all there is to it. In stead of the art it actually is. Translating the term into English is problematic, because the "Orient" is often used to include Asian countries like China or Indonesia. So let's keep raqs sharqi. --Judithcomm (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read you, I'm more convinced about naming the cat as Belly dance or Belly dancing. You have a humorous style -like myself- and I appreciate it, but your arguments do not attract me. Although I'm not a fan of EN:WP, I suppose this time we can agree with them. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Funny or not, your arguments do not attract me either. You are suggesting to rename a category that has been on Commons for 12 years, including many subcategories. I was very pleased to find out that at least someone got it right (the creator of this category), so I would hate to see it changed. I'm sure that the dancers I know (as editor and publisher of a professional journal on raqs sharqi I know many) would agree with me. --Judithcomm (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you could make a call to those people to come and opine here, as new users or popping up IPs. We cannot go to them to ask their opinion. --E4024 (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename- This should be the name in English. Raqs Sharqi is not the common name in English. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose: Raqs Sharqi is very commonly seen in dance studios &c., so is becoming more or less naturalized into English in the same manner as “waltz” or “flamenco”. I agree with those who have said above that belly dance is a vague popular term including many styles (ranging from folk/street dances to Hollywood/erotic performances) of which Raqs Sharqi is a specific style. I have also seen it called “Orientale“ style, but not so often.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "I agree with those who have said above that belly dance is a vague popular term including many styles"? There is only one person in that camp. --E4024 (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, interestingly I have repeated just this point; but it is something (a conflict) to be stressed anyways. --E4024 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "one person" you refer to happens to be an expert on the subject. Maybe that's worth repeating as well. --Judithcomm (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which expert? An academician? Someone adding her own pics? What? --E4024 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...

  • Discussions never end and a dance made best by Turkish and Lebanese dancers stays here as an Egyptian cat farm and of course I will not add any Turkish cats on a POV name I reject... E4024 (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude or partially nude women wearing lingerie

[edit]

All women wearing lingerie are in this cat, as we cannot see their innerwear if they were not nude or partially nude. E4024 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, if they were "nude" they would not be wearing anything. I think this love for cats beginning with "Nude or partially nude women" takes us to absurd places. (I am waiting anxiously when we will have a cat for "Nude or partially nude businesswomen with hair behind left ear". :) --E4024 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: , your skepticism about “Nude or partially nude…” is legitimate, but
  1. argumentation is complete bollocks;
  2. there is, actually, another deficiency.
We can see that Katy Perry wears panties. Who will say she is (partially) nude on this photo? On the other hand, the girl with magenta hairs doesn’t wear panties, but wears something else. Indeed, such categories are insufficiently specific; the “nude or partially nude” cliché is really silly for such deep categorizations. On these depths, names have to refer explicitly to clothes present and/or or absent. Wouldn’t object against Category:Women wearing stockings but not knickers if one collected at least five images where they evidently satisfy such a condition. As for “businesswomen”—isn’t it a sarcasm?—seriously, I deem that such categorization factors may not be used for images of people at all (refer to discussion on redirected category:Alcoholics). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Incnis, your words "there is, actually, another deficiency" makes me feel I've done a good thing by opening this discussion. Now people more experienced, intelligent or capable than me will be able to spend some of their time to think on this cat, which otherwise might not ever attracted their attention. A good small step for a better categorization. --E4024 (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It just makes sense a "partially nude" category, which would have the topless and bottomless categories in it. Nude means not wearing anything at all. So, it's more logic to rename the category to "Partially nude women wearing lingerie".--Jim Bangs (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mirror effect

[edit]

Reviewed some stuff in relation to this topic and ended in confusion, myself, in respect to this category.

Generally, Commons makes a clear distinction between photos of genuine optical reflection and images (of any nature) which underwent geometric reflection after their creation (for whatever cause). This category appears to contain a mix of photos of reflections with photoshopping. The same for supercategories: both physical reflection (indirectly) and Photographic effects. Although physical reflection can, arguably, be one of ways to perform Image manipulation, the category at least needs some definition of scope. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The scope of Category:Mirror effect is not specificed, but could easily be. I'm not sure about defining the potential scope of Category:Mirroring. When does reflection become mirroring? Could the contents of Category:Mirroring simply be upmerged to Category:Reflection? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Mirroring logos and Mirroring letters are Benzoyl’s produce about geometric reflection and are, in essence, both about the same thing (see also my recent creation Flipped or flopped inscriptions for the case where the properly oriented original is not visible). This has very little to do with physics. On the other hand, many stuff from Mirrors ought to be moved to Reflections in mirrors, the latter must be (and is) a subcategory for Reflections on objects. The situation in Mirror glasses is similar except there is no subcategory for such reflections. Considering the question “when does reflection become mirroring” – IMHO where it has fidelity high enough to be useful as an image of the original object(s). Simply “mirrors” are just a kind of objects and their relation to Category:Reflections in oblique, but they are tools (like many other tools) to produce high-fidelity reflections. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2018/01&oldid=917054831"