Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06
I believe this should be moved back to Category:Praia, as the current disambiguation occupying that place is nonsense as a disambiguation. "Praia" is the Portuguese word for beach (singular), in the same way as Category:Porto is the Portuguese word for port, and nobody finds it confusing. Erroneous categorization should not be an excuse for creating disambiguations. Darwin Ahoy! 08:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and Auntof6: from the previous discussion.-- Darwin Ahoy! 08:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Praia. Erroneous categorization is a very good reason for creating disambiguation, maybe the best reason for disambiguating. Porto aside, people were confusing the two, which is why it was moved in the first place. Moreover, it should be moved back to Category:Praia, Cape Verde as a more standard format (Praia is not a type of Cape Verde, it's a place in Cape Verde), which you moved without discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Pretty much everything in the Cape Verde category tree uses "name (disambiguation)" format, which is a perfectly acceptable format here, so I don't see the point of using a different standard there. Please show where it has been discussed that "name, disambiguation" is more standard than "name (disambiguation)", because I've never seen that conclusion.
- People were not confusing anything there. People were using a native name for "beach", which is completely out of Commons norms, and should not be used as measure for anything here. I
 strongly disagree with keeping "Praia" as a disambiguation - was not even disambiguating anything meaningful at all - just names which include "Praia", but are not known as "Praia" - a plain wrong use for a disambiguation. Now I included "beaches" on it, so to make it more meaningful acording to the previous discussion, but I still find it quite absurd.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- People (or at least bots) must have been as it collected images for beaches. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Praia. Erroneous categorization is a very good reason for creating disambiguation, maybe the best reason for disambiguating. Porto aside, people were confusing the two, which is why it was moved in the first place. Moreover, it should be moved back to Category:Praia, Cape Verde as a more standard format (Praia is not a type of Cape Verde, it's a place in Cape Verde), which you moved without discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose The fact that Commons categories are plural and in English is due to NC, see w:WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, similar to how the thing you drive is at w:Car but w:Cars redirects there, not to w:Cars (film). It is as pointed out likely to get incorrect content. The city doesn't meet either w:WP:PTOPIC. There are also other things called "Praia" at w:Praia (disambiguation) and its surprising that Porto also isn't disambiguated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The category should remain disambiguated, preferably with a comma instead of parentheses. Before it was disambiguated, it often got miscellaneous images of beaches from various places. Not all Commons users speak English, know that cat names are supposed to be in English, or even have a good understanding of how categories should be named. I often see cases where such people assign category names in their own language. Most of the time such categories don't exist: they either stay redlinked or they get created and have to be deleted or changed. Sometimes, though, a category does exist, though not meaning what the user intended: these can be hard to identify and correct even if someone is monitoring the category. If you don't think this kind of incorrect categorization is a reason to disambiguate, then how would you address it? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Why with a comma instead of a parenthesis? That would completely out of the standard used through the rest of that tree.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Because in most cases I've seen, commas are used for settlements and parentheses are used for things like geographical features. If you look at [the list of categories for things called "Little River"] (ignoring the ones that are Little River <something additional>), the ones with commas are settlements and the ones with parentheses are rivers. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Other geographical features also get commas sometimes, see Category:Rivers of Suffolk. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Because in most cases I've seen, commas are used for settlements and parentheses are used for things like geographical features. If you look at [the list of categories for things called "Little River"] (ignoring the ones that are Little River <something additional>), the ones with commas are settlements and the ones with parentheses are rivers. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Why with a comma instead of a parenthesis? That would completely out of the standard used through the rest of that tree.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe we should take the comma vs parenthesis issue to the village pump and try to make consistent policy. I think comma for "location" and parenthesis for "example of" would make a lot of sense - I believe that's what's done at English wikipedia - but we don't technically have a rule here. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Â Oppose: Non-existing problems donât need solutions. -- TuvĂĄlkin â â 15:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Almost all the individuals in the subcategories are wearing translucent clothing, not transparent clothing. I suggest the names should be changed to reflect that... Geo Swan (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe "sheer clothing" would be a good term. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- That could work. We don't have a Category:Sheer clothing or Category:Sheer fabric but we do have Category:Sheer tights which could also go in such a category. There's a wikipedia article at en:Sheer fabric to link to. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Over on the Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Nipples through clothing another contributor claimed the nipples in a particular image were "prominent", when they were barely visible. I suggest that, without regard to the names we choose, it is a waste of human effort to add images to these categories when the nipples are barely noticeable. I suggest it also wastes the time of our readers.
So I would accept either Category:Nipples prominently visible through translucent clothing or Category:Nipples prominently visible through sheer clothing, or some variation that indicates only images with prominent nipples belong. Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- If we make a category and specify "prominent", that would invite not only disputes about what's prominent, but creation of categories for other degrees of visibility. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have an amusing story about a family pet that I would share, but it's not relevant to this discussion. This is a badly named category for a couple of reasons. Not only is the clothing translucent rather than transparent, the category seems to be used when areolae are visible. The parent category concerns nipples. If this category is to make sense, it should be renamed Category:Areloae visible through sheer clothing or Category:Areloae visible through translucent clothing but the entire category is pretty much redundant since we already have Category:Women wearing transparent clothing which suffers from the same problem. The whole mess seems to have been started by User:Neelix. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Can we avoid the problem (and avoid a long-winded category name) with a move to Category:Sheer tops (clothing)? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Probably not, if the point of the category is the anatomy that can be seen through the clothing. A category with that name could get images of sheer clothing that isn't being worn at the moment, or that is being worn as a layer with other clothing. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Can we avoid the problem (and avoid a long-winded category name) with a move to Category:Sheer tops (clothing)? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Merge to Bikeway bridges as essentially the same topic, and should have been plural for a number of things. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I have seen the bikeway bridge category, however I think there is some vocabulary question here. A bicycle bridge can indeed be on a bikeway, but it can be either prolonging bike lanes or simply be connected to ordinary roads, especially when they are used both as footbridges and bike bridges. Hence I thought the bicycle bridge category might be more generic than bikeway bridges, where there was not many images, anyway. PRZ (talk)
For the plural, you are probably true PRZ (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- @PRZ: If a bridge does not connect to a bikeway or have a bikeway marked on it, in what way does it differ from a footbridge? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is not always difference, often just signs of acceptable users. Sometimes, multi-purpose bridges only have stairs with a very steep ramp along the stair for the bike to be pushed manually, which is not practical, but you can commonly found them. However that could be a vocabulary/translation problem, in my mother language (french), we distinguish bike lane (along road) from bike path (separated), but reading the english pages on the topic, it seems that the 'bikeway' word is more generic, so that may be more acceptable than I initially thought and I'm a bit confused now. See also https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/159307/bikeway-vs-bike-route-vs-bike-path-vs-bike-trail-vs-bike-track-vs?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa. As Wikipedia seems to use 'bikeway' as the most generic term, that may be more simple to follow Wikipedia Legacy and merge. I assumed some bot will correct the category links ? PRZ (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. I don't feel like "bike way" is in very frequent use in English, so I assume it's a somewhat invented generic term to group together bike paths, bike lanes and anything else similar. I'd say we should redirect Category:Bicycle bridges to Category:Bikeway bridges or possibly Category:Bikeways on bridges - Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Bikeways is a real, if generic term, suggesting it should be a top-level category. Underneath that would be as @PRZ: suggests above. Accordingly, a bridge for bicyles could be on any subcategory of these, but do we really need to differentiate, given that most of them will also be footbridges? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- That will always be controversial, notably because 'bikeway' seems mostly american english and is not used at all by UK charity 'Sustrans' who have made a quite detailed guide for cycling infrastructure (and also another nice one for bridges), in fact the best doc I ever found on the topic. To add troubles, the English Wikipedia use 'cycling bridges' for the equivalent categories. And I may add that while searching Wikimedia Commons images, my best pick was by far given by the combination 'cycle bridge'. At the end, using 'bikeway' will preserve coherency within Wikimedia Commons, which is important. This is also the term used in English Wikipedia as top of lanes/path/trails. PRZ (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Bikeways is a real, if generic term, suggesting it should be a top-level category. Underneath that would be as @PRZ: suggests above. Accordingly, a bridge for bicyles could be on any subcategory of these, but do we really need to differentiate, given that most of them will also be footbridges? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. I don't feel like "bike way" is in very frequent use in English, so I assume it's a somewhat invented generic term to group together bike paths, bike lanes and anything else similar. I'd say we should redirect Category:Bicycle bridges to Category:Bikeway bridges or possibly Category:Bikeways on bridges - Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is not always difference, often just signs of acceptable users. Sometimes, multi-purpose bridges only have stairs with a very steep ramp along the stair for the bike to be pushed manually, which is not practical, but you can commonly found them. However that could be a vocabulary/translation problem, in my mother language (french), we distinguish bike lane (along road) from bike path (separated), but reading the english pages on the topic, it seems that the 'bikeway' word is more generic, so that may be more acceptable than I initially thought and I'm a bit confused now. See also https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/159307/bikeway-vs-bike-route-vs-bike-path-vs-bike-trail-vs-bike-track-vs?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa. As Wikipedia seems to use 'bikeway' as the most generic term, that may be more simple to follow Wikipedia Legacy and merge. I assumed some bot will correct the category links ? PRZ (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The two categories should be surely merged, it is confusing to have two categories for cycling bridges. --Ĺ JĹŻ (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu and PRZ: Given the existence of Category:Pedestrian and bicycle bridges and Category:Bridges with bikeways, the only possible use of Category:Bicycle bridge(s) and Category:Bikeway bridges that I can imagine would be something like Category:Bicycle-only bridges. A quick look doesn't reveal any such images though, so we might be best deleting/redirecting both. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of opening to discussion all these cats, including this one opened by "me". Sorry, I'm critical even with myself. I will continue afterwards; this small box in which I'm trying to write puts me nervous. (Never learned how to express myself shortly! :) E4024 (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Now, hijab-hijabs, we have been hovering around some "clothing". I recognize my own confusion also. One reason is, although we use an English-based platform, we employ a lot of foreign words and concepts. Being from a vast-majority-muslim country, Turkey, I had hardly heard of the word/concept "hijab" in my life until I came to WP. Therefore I was quick to believe it was some kind of Arab/Islam whatsoever female clothing, just like many other similars. As we have our "own" Islamic terminology in Turkish, I did not realize until recently that it means "Ürtßnme" and or "kaç-gÜç". (Some people in Turkey who like to use words of certain Oriental languages instead of our beautiful Turkish may prefer to say "tesettßr"; we have been hearing that word in the last decades, together with "tßrban", which we used to think as something of India and of men, not females. Close the parenthesis.) Now what explains simply what "hijab" is can be read here: [BBC makes the exact definition of "Ürtßnme" (covering herself) and "kaç-gÜç" (keeping away from non-relative males, a practice that is almost extinct everywhere, see Afgan female police/soldiers or Iranian "firewomen" etc), IMHO.] Having caused you this much of time loss, in short I'm trying to say that anything (a scarf, a dupatta, a hat, a kepis, a beret...) but "anything" can be (used as) a "hijab". My mother and her friends never went around with their heads covered; if there was a "tßrbe" (tomb of a religious person) or cemetery visit, or at a home they recited the Quran for some gone away soul, they would take out a headscarf from those mysterious bags and put it on the head. (Mom had two taboos, never told us her age, until old enough, nor let us see what was in her bag; I believe she could take out a big white rabbit from in there, suddenly. :) One interesting solution I remember from Turkish women in urgent "Ürtßnme" needs like the above cases, in case they did not carry a headscarf, was to use a "hĹrka" (cardigan, sweater, something with sleeves?) -which was always available for sudden weather changes, generally hanging back from the shoulders or at the thighs- as a head scarf, making the knod with the sleeves under the chin. Therefore, even the cardigan was / could be a hijab. Where did I reach at? Even I don't know. Please do not scold me for taking your time, I'm only trying to understand things better and help others to understand in case I have some useful input. If not, just go back to what you were doing, forget this CfD. I may close this when everybody has forgotten my long stupid chat, never mind. --E4024 (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I actually think this is a great nomination, E4024.
I'm surprised it's not a child category of Category:Headscarves and that there's no Category:Women wearing headscarves.We have Category:Jewish women's head coverings but no Category:Muslim women's head coverings. Images like this and File:Femmes-Amish.jpg are included in en:Christian headcovering, but not categorized as such on commons. I don't see any category at all for Christian nuns either. I'm not sure about the best grandparent category or categorization scheme yet, but something should be done. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I actually think this is a great nomination, E4024.
Harmonisation with the other vehicles categories Eddaido (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The use of this category would benefit from harmonisation of its trees with the rest of the categorisation of vehicles. This is my proposal which I hope is self-explanatory.
- Category:Vehicles of heads of state
- Category:Aircraft of heads of state (currently at Category:Aircraft of heads of state and government
- Category:Land vehicles of heads of state
- Category:Watercraft of heads of state
There is also the problem that many countries have one head of government who is the head of state â unless they have a monarchy and prime minister, or they have a president (as in Germany) as something of a figurehead of state together with a chancellor. How should this be handled? Eddaido (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that Category:Heads of state is a sub-category of Category:Heads of government. Could we merge all of this to Category:Vehicles of heads of government (etc) and then mix the Queen Elizabeth's car with the Prime Minister's Theresa May's car, or whatever? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes of course. Should this be done by replacing the word state throughout the tree with government? Eddaido (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I was proposing. Please give others a little more time to respond before acting though. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Could that be 'heads of state and government', maybe even 'heads of state or government'? Eddaido (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I was proposing. Please give others a little more time to respond before acting though. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes of course. Should this be done by replacing the word state throughout the tree with government? Eddaido (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- We generally try to avoid combining things like that, because there is no Category:Heads of state and government category for it to go in. But at least according to existing commons categorization, heads of state are one type of heads of government, so I think it's okay. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. And I take it that's a green light for the "and" version not the "or" version? Eddaido (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, this is a discussion and I have no special power to redlight or greenlight anything, but no, I'm not sure the "and" version or the "or" version are good or necessary. According to our current categorization Category:Vehicles of heads of goverment de facto includes vehicles of heads of state because heads of state are heads of goverment. But maybe I'm wrong on this one. Anyone else have an opinion? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I've got a bit lost on this one. You are suggesting "Queen Elizabeth's car" HoS goes with HoG Prime Minister Teresa May's car but in which category? I'd have thought that in general the car of a head of government that was not also head of state would be fairly unremarkable, (tonnes of armour but) work-a-day rather than fancy. Commons does have photos of a car for Angela Merkel see Category:Audi A8 D3 (Angela Merkel) and Category:Automobiles of heads of state in Germany, maybe there is not a lot of difference?
- Well, this is a discussion and I have no special power to redlight or greenlight anything, but no, I'm not sure the "and" version or the "or" version are good or necessary. According to our current categorization Category:Vehicles of heads of goverment de facto includes vehicles of heads of state because heads of state are heads of goverment. But maybe I'm wrong on this one. Anyone else have an opinion? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. And I take it that's a green light for the "and" version not the "or" version? Eddaido (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- We have images of (long gone) royalty and their transports etc for most old established countries so there is a use for separate heads of state categories in transport.
- I now understand that this is a discussion, what are your thoughts? I just want to try to fit in with the overall scheme of things. Eddaido (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Eddaido: I'm suggesting Category:Queen Elizabeth's car and Category:Teresa May's car both go in Category:Automobiles of heads of government of the United Kingdom (currently at Category:Automobiles of heads of the United Kingdom). Given all the countries in the world and the fairly long timespan we'll cover, I imagine there is no consistency at all to what a vehicle of a head of government looks like vs the vehicle of a head of state. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have to say I find this all throughly confusing. I picked the example UK up above for no good reason at all, I am used to typing at some length the United Kingdom when that's what I mean. I have typed that phrase a great deal in the last month or more so it is a matter of habit and UK just a nonsense but it is easy to see how the misunderstanding of my intent arose.
- Are you aware that Category:Automobiles of heads of the United Kingdom - I have never previously had cause to notice it - is an orphan that feeds into heads of state of the united k which feeds into heads of govt of the united k - it is a category Totally surplus to requirements and harmonises with nothing. Had you not noticed that?
- You have a horribly complex (voluntary) responsibility - I envy you not at all. Best, Eddaido (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Eddaido: Haha! No, I hadn't noticed until I went looking for an example. That kind of thing abounds, so it doesn't get me too upset when I see it. I guess, before any move happens, we need to ask whether a "head of state" is a legitimate sub-category of "head of government". If so, we can just use "vehicles of head of government" and group together vehicles of prime ministers and figurehead presidents/royalty. If not, then we need to group Category:Heads of state and Category:Heads of government as peer/parallel categories with some other term to group them together. Then we could use that for the vehicles categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- (Heads of State / Government very much a minor matter)
My hope was to minimise that abounding which you speak of. Would you mind very much comparing the proposed tree at the top of this discussion with the current tree by clicking on the link. I think it would be very simple and straightforward to bring all these current categories into harmony with the rest of the Commons categorisation in the way I show up at the top. Many of the components are correct already. If you think this is just a foolish thought of mine please tell me now before we spend more time on it. Best, Eddaido (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)- @Eddaido: I'll agree that it should be a minor matter, but that doesn't give us a way to solve the issue of heads of government which are not heads of state. Do we just leave their vehicles out of the tree? Put them all in Category:Vehicles of heads of government? Or do we put vehicles of heads of government in the tree for heads of state? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- (Heads of State / Government very much a minor matter)
- @Themightyquill: Apologies for slow response, been thinking. My reading of Wikipedia (WP because I guess it shows the prevailing orthodoxy) is that Heads of Government are ranked lower than Heads of State. To please any purists and to avoid confusion I think we should keep both (e.g.) (Vehicles of) heads of Government and (Vehicles of) heads of State and that ()Government should feed into ()State. (but see item 1. below) But you know many things I do not know, how does that seem to you?
- Eddaido (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Eddaido: No need for apologies. I was the slow one to respond, not you! I'm not sure if I understand though. Assuming we keep the category tree you propose at the top, does a photo of a road vehicle of a head of government simply go in Category:Road vehicles of heads of state? Or do we create a whole separate category tree leading to Category:Road vehicles of heads of government? (yes) Or do we just keep it in Category:Vehicles of heads of government and not sub-categorize unless it becomes very full? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- 1. Now that I look I see we already have Category:Vehicles of heads of government and Category:Vehicles of heads of state each feeding into Category:Official state vehicles. The original designers know things I don't so maybe it better stay as it is (instead of my suggested govt feeding into state)
- 2. I'm sure they can be deleted if you not approve my suggestion but I have taken the liberty of creating (many more than intended, please do not regard it as pre-emptive when forming your opinion) a number of categories in a heads of government tree because there are in fact quite a number of uncategorised images of that class.
- Before I began investigating and experimenting I was, in any case, planning to suggest a separate tree noting that the policy of no image=no category would limit its use. That's still true, there are just far more candidates than I thought. These are the new categories I've made to see how it might work out.
- 3. Ha! I see that we have a Category:Heads of state of former countries which collection seems to include former countries like Canada and Australia
- That works for me. We could also create Category:Official state automobiles to group Category:Automobiles of heads of state and Category:Automobiles of heads of government and any other relevant automobiles. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Great! I have created Category:Official state automobiles but I am in doubt as to where that should lead. In the meantime I have linked it to Category:Government vehicles. Where should it go? Eddaido (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've done this, I hope that works for you:
- Best, Themightyquill (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Great! I have created Category:Official state automobiles but I am in doubt as to where that should lead. In the meantime I have linked it to Category:Government vehicles. Where should it go? Eddaido (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- That works for me. We could also create Category:Official state automobiles to group Category:Automobiles of heads of state and Category:Automobiles of heads of government and any other relevant automobiles. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I wish I was able to understand the basic principles behind Commons Categorising. I have tried many times and, quite simply, I don't. I just have to copy. I'm going to take some time off now to see (amongst other things) if I can understand why you created this diversion about government automobiles and ignored what seemed to me important concerns! Right up there at the top of the discussion! 'bye for now. Eddaido (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Eddaido Don't be sad. =) I wasn't suggesting we were done, or ignoring your proposal, just looking for ways to make it work. There doesn't seem to be any opposition, so I'd say, go ahead and make the changes you proposed. It won't be too much fun removing "head of government aircraft" from the aircraft categories as you move them, but it shouldn't be too difficult. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I
 agree with the category names and nesting outlined in the OP. -- TuvĂĄlkin â â 01:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Aircraft of heads of state and government: Is it a mess or not? Anything to consider here? Please note: I did not read the above disussion, anybody intending to make a sarcastic remark can save their words. I was just trying to make the head of state vehicles cats for Turkey and saw that there was a disccussion on the cats of these vehicles... Good-bye. --E4024 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Look at the cats upwards and downwards, and the pictures, and tell me something about "Islam in Commons" and "good faith". Do we really want to help people or we want to make people hate each other? If the latter is the case, I need to know. E4024 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- What should muslims do? Add a religious cat to every porn star? Sorry, at least I will not do that. I am here trying to do a something "good". Felt offended? Try to understand why... --E4024 (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would say that one of the two child categories, "Orientalist nude photographs," is not necessarily about Islam. So this is an extra level of categorization which may not be necessary. It has, however, been around for nearly a decade. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. If we keep the nominated category, it should be renamed to Category:Nudity and Muslim culture, because parent is Category:Muslim culture--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand this cat. Is the title name of a book? Certainly the pics are about Ottoman Armenians, but neither TekirdaÄ nor Athens is in Armenia, nor Asia. "Photographs of Armenia" in the description is not right. E4024 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is true. Better to write:
- Category:Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection black and white photographs of Armenian people. Or similar text, best regards --JMCC1 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comprehension. I understand you have a special interest to Armenians but the files in the cat also have Greeks, Syrians and Americans. (As usual, we Turks are ousted. :) For the moment I changed the cat a bit. I will make the rename but not like you say; because this is about the drama of all the "Ottomans". (Don't worry, I will not open polemical subjects like how many Turks and other muslims were killed at the wake of the Empire. I can refer you to pages where you can see mosques burned with the people locked inside, or kids whose arms were amputated, for hatred.) If you stay silent I will find an "objective" title. It's not so difficult to be a part and objective at the same time, I learned this. Recuerdos. --E4024 (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am thinking about bringing together this cat with Category:Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection black and white photographs of Turkey, but although I use the denomination "Ottoman Empire", Athens will not get in there. Let me think a bit more about this, if not today by the latest at the weekend, and I will find a solution. Neutrality/objectivity requires not to "divide" people; that brought us all a lot of problems in the past. I will think about something concerned with "Ottoman refugees". Give me time. Buen finde. --E4024 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- If it's the formal name of a fond in the collection, then I'd suggest Category:Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection (Black and white photographs of Armenian people) or Category:Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection - Black and white photographs of Armenian people. If it's just a commons category created by a user, then Category:Black and white photographs of Armenian people in the Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection. In that case, we might also remove the "black and white photographs" part, since most if not all the images we have from that collection are B&W: Category:Images of Armenian people in the Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK E4024.
- OK Themightyquill. Category:Images of Armenian people in the Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection is good Category. --JMCC1 (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- If it's the formal name of a fond in the collection, then I'd suggest Category:Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection (Black and white photographs of Armenian people) or Category:Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection - Black and white photographs of Armenian people. If it's just a commons category created by a user, then Category:Black and white photographs of Armenian people in the Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection. In that case, we might also remove the "black and white photographs" part, since most if not all the images we have from that collection are B&W: Category:Images of Armenian people in the Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Themightyquill and JMCC1: If we rename the nominated category, then all categories in Category:Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection black and white photographs of Asia are affected. Actually all categories in Category:Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection. Maybe it is not rational to rename the nominated category? We should also be sure that these categories are not formal names of the fonds in the collection--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Based on content, the present category would best be called 'Buildings called "Pantheon"' and should not be specifically associated with Ancient Roman architecture. We could have a subcategory for Ancient Roman (and Ancient Greek) pantheons as such. In any case, I've edited Wikidata to break the linkage with, for example en:Pantheon (religion), since that is about an abstraction: "the particular set of all gods of any polytheistic religion, mythology, or tradition" and none of hte content of this category relates to that. Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, though perhaps Category:Structures called Pantheon. In that case, we can also add Category:Pantheon of the Workers' Movement and perhaps others like it. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, as creator. i didnt realize that the word Pantheon was used for a plethora of non greek/roman god related buildings. it was intended to collect those. i see no value in a category for buildings called pantheons if they have no other link than the name. that would be like listing all buildings called Temples in one category. sort of meaningless. however, if there is an architetural feature to some pantheons, say related to the famous roman one, i see value there. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- We have a lot of categories like that related to names under Category:Buildings by name, e.g. Category:Buildings called tower. Perfectly suitable, but we basically need two distinct categories, one for the sense you originally intended, and a separate one for the more metaphorical use. I don't think the third sense in en:Pantheon (religion) is useful for Commons, but I wouldn't object is someone thinks it is.- Jmabel ! talk 09:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- All the current content does seems to be related to the buildings, whether the original type or the so-called. I believe a cat for the religious/mythographic sense is useful, although not necessarily under that name: I came here looking for somewhere to put an âorganizationalâ or genealogical chart of an ancient Near Eastern pantheon (list of principal deities). We have a few such diagrams here & there, and categories like Twelve Olympians that could populate it.âOdysseus1479 (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- We have a lot of categories like that related to names under Category:Buildings by name, e.g. Category:Buildings called tower. Perfectly suitable, but we basically need two distinct categories, one for the sense you originally intended, and a separate one for the more metaphorical use. I don't think the third sense in en:Pantheon (religion) is useful for Commons, but I wouldn't object is someone thinks it is.- Jmabel ! talk 09:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I propose deleting this. With this name ("by occupation"), the content should be something like "Category:Presidents who were lawyers" -- in other words, what was their occupation before being a politician. I don't know if we have any categories like that, but there aren't any here. Auntof6 (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Presidents by activity? I'm not sure "with ice cream" is an activity though. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- That would be an improvement. To me, though, only Category:Presidents of the United States by activity would belong in such a category (I don't think "Obama and beer" is an activity, either): do we need a general presidents-by-activity category for just that? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- It would just be a way to ground that particular category tree. Maybe no other heads of state are photographed to quite the same extent (at least not with copyright cleared photos) but I suppose other presidents could end up with images here. I'm fairly neutral. If we keep it, rename and move to Category:People by occupation by activity. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- That would be an improvement. To me, though, only Category:Presidents of the United States by activity would belong in such a category (I don't think "Obama and beer" is an activity, either): do we need a general presidents-by-activity category for just that? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: am I correct that such category tree:
- Category:People by occupation by activity
- Category: Politicians by activity (addition per User:Auntof6)
- Category:Presidents by activity (after we rename the nominated category)
- Category: Politicians by activity (addition per User:Auntof6)
--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: That could be good, but maybe Category: Politicians by activity ahead of presidents by activity? Although that would imply that non-politician presidents shouldn't be there. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I added your suggestion. Currently Category:Presidents are exclusively for politicians (heads of a state)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Maybe it's supposed to be only for heads of state, but there are subcats for other kinds of presidents. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Good point, Auntof6. I see en:Category:Presidents has the same problem. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I'm not sure I see it as a problem. Both governmental presidents and company presidents (did I miss any other kinds?) are heads of organizations, so I think it's OK for them to be under this umbrella. I guess we could qualify all the relevant categories, though. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Good point, Auntof6. I see en:Category:Presidents has the same problem. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Maybe it's supposed to be only for heads of state, but there are subcats for other kinds of presidents. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I added your suggestion. Currently Category:Presidents are exclusively for politicians (heads of a state)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: } Well, we have Category:University and college presidents as well. I could see Category:Presidents as a catch-all for anyone with the title president, but the challenge is that Category:Presidents is a currently subcategory of Category:Heads of state and Category:Politicians by office. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, that would have to be changed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- So we renamed this to Category:Presidents (heads of state) including all the subcategories? I'm not sure... -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, that would have to be changed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
"Assembly of the Republic" ĂŠ inglĂŞs de praia. Ă o mesmo que dizer que o Costa ĂŠ o âfirst ministerâ. Esta cat deve ser renomeada como "Parliament of Portugal" ou, mais exatamente, "Parliament of the Third Portuguese Republic". -- TuvĂĄlkin â â 07:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: ping! -- TuvĂĄlkin â â 07:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Detesto tambĂŠm, por mim passamos para Parliament of the Third Portuguese Republic. Pus porque era o tĂtulo na wiki.en, mas nĂŁo me agrada nem um pouco.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. If enwiki article is also under en:Assembly of the Republic (Portugal), I suggest to  Keep--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- The article name in en:wp is also broken English calqued from a peculiar proper noun that would not be understandable in Portuguese without historical context: "Assembleia" has a generic meaning, "parlamento" being specific to this notion. Funny that Estopedist1 would rather dismiss the concerns of two Portuguese native speaking Commons editors and keep this challenged cat name in the name of expediency. (And oh, look: Now itâs not stale anymore!) -- TuvĂĄlkin â â 22:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin, @DarwIn, is there agreement on what this category should be renamed to? Josh (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- As you can see, thereâs agreement between us two that it should be changed, while user Estopedist1 wants no change. -- TuvĂĄlkin â â 16:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment: Per the official homepage in English, they refer to their legislative organ as the "Portuguese Parliament", but it is a single-cameral parliament, and when referring to the body itself, they insist on Assembleia da República. Since for our purposes, the parliament as a whole and the single chamber it is composed of are functionally equivalent for organizing any files we may have on them. Thus, it seems that "Portuguese Parliament" would be an appropriate title for the parent category for this legislature. Josh (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin, @DarwIn, is there agreement on what this category should be renamed to? Josh (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
can we merge this cat with Category:Marie Antoinette (given name) (same name combination only differing in use of hyphen)? And establish this as a rule for similar double names? Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 Support I doubt if many people will be aware of the difference and to have to examine two categories instead of one seems a little onerous. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Redirected to Category:Marie Antoinette (given name). - Themightyquill (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki and Rodhullandemu: Reopened. I moved those that I could manually, but some categories are placed in Category:Marie-Antoinette (given name) as a result of the {{Wikidata infobox}}. So long as the category exists, they'll stay in Category:Marie-Antoinette (given name). I'm not sure of a solution. =( - Themightyquill (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I suspect that the {{Wikidata infobox}} does not respect category redirects. As long WD property given name (P735) is set to Marie-Antoinette (Q20154678), and the later marks Marie Antoinette (Q252316) different from (P1889) and defines Marie Antoinette (Q252316) as a disambiguation, we have some kind of cross project inconsistency. One idea would be to have the redirect here on commons just the other way round, another idea is to set the site link to commons on WD to the correct category here (no idea whether this will be respected by {{Wikidata infobox}}). @Mike Peel: as the author of {{Wikidata infobox}}. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Or we keep them as different categories like hundreds of similar others. --JuTa 13:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- my fantasy still is that abstraction is a good thing and a goal of commons categories. And that content comes first and technology based forces second. Surrender? Never! --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Or we keep them as different categories like hundreds of similar others. --JuTa 13:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- There's an imminent change to the infobox that would set "Category:Marie (given name) Category:Antoinette (given name)" for cases where they are separate names not joined by a hyphen (stored with given name (P735)=Marie (Q632104) + Antoinette (Q1906662)). So redirect to the version with the hyphen rather than without, and it should all work out OK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. Categories of double-barrelled names (family names and given names) should be banned in Commons--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hard no They have different Wikidata and are different names.StarTrekker (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Another one-file cat. E4024 (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is an article about "Anti-GesichtsverhĂźllungsgesetz" (without "Ăsterreich") in German WP, about "Austria"; but within its cats somehow I do not see "Category: Islam in Austria" as varying from the situation in our hands. --E4024 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- @E4024: yes, one-file categories should be avoided whenever possible. But as far I known, we are not allowed to delete them. But if we keep this category it must be moved to Category:Anti-GesichtsverhĂźllungsgesetz--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Vous parlez Anglais? E4024 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also its subcat Category:Est Ă laine MĂŠrinos. Unless these are titles of books or something, they should be in English. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Two possibilities:
- This is a list of breeds originating in france, in which case, somehow merge with Category:Sheep breeds originating in France
- Based on fr:Liste et classification des races ovines de France, this is a list of breeds recongized by the fr:Bureau des ressources gĂŠnĂŠtiques, in which case, create something equivalent to Category:Breeds recognised by the Poultry Club of Great Britain
- Or something else? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Two possibilities:
stale discussion. We also have Liste et classification des races ovines de France, and enwiki has en:List of French sheep breeds. I support the second variant, ie Category:Classification et liste des races ovines de France to be renamed to Category:Sheep breeds recognized by the Bureau des ressources gĂŠnĂŠtiques--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'd support that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
It is not normal to categorize by grouped parishes, this should be merged with Category:Borough of West Devon. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Â Keep Nope. While incorrect procedures may have been followed (the intent was clearly to formally merge into one CP), Burrator is de facto treated as a single parish and has a single council. It even has its own "welcome to parish" signs - something unusual for parishes. Therefore this is a useful category, although content probably should be split out into the relevant formal CPs.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- While it may be a more natural name than Swilland and Witnesham, which is from 2 different names, shouldn't we wait until it actually becomes a CP first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- As far as its council is concerned it is already the civil parish for the area. But regardless of its current status, there is an entity called "Burrator", which can be used for categorisation purposes. If you want to split the content from Category:Burrator into the three CPs, go ahead. But don't upmerge content to the district, that's just idiotic.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have moved the other categories to their formal CPs, I'd suggest that you use your bot to move all the images to the correct CATs. There is not legally a CP with that name, just a council which represents 3 CPs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- IMO there is nothing wrong with the current arrangements, so will not waste my time on a bot-run for this - there are plenty of more serious issues around. If you want to change the image categorisation, change it (but get it right!). Regardless, the category for Burrator as a whole should be kept.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- It would be easier to use the bot, there are over 1000 images! I have moved the other categories to the correct CPs, this CP does not exist, you though having a separate category for Shropshire district was a bad idea but that does exist as a district, not just a council. From w:User:Crouch, Swale/Grouped civil parishes no other grouped CP has a separate Commons cat and it could be questioned whether we need separate WP articles for them. Burrator is a ward with similar boundaries so should be OK for a WP article but as we use CPs and generally not wards, we shouldn't have this here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- The category is fine, and other stuff (not) existing isn't a reason to change that. If you want to spend your time moving the files to the relevant subcats, go ahead - but I will not spend my time doing so. Don't rely on others to clean up after you.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- A bot could easily move them, why should this be an exception, there is no settlement, CP or other geographical feature called "Burrator". Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- You could easily move them yourself, so stop wasting my time (and yours!) trying to persuade me to do it for you. I WON'T. That's because I don't have a bot, I have a semi-automated script that saves time with very large sets. There is no benefit here, as the set-up costs would far outweigh the benefits. As for why an exception? Because it exists, and is useful. The only reason I have bothered to comment this much is that upmerging to the district is downright dumb - and does far more damage than tolerating this case.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I cannot easily move over 1000 images. And it doesn't exist as a CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sure you can. That's what HotCat and Cat-a-Lot are for. Most of these images are from geograph, and you can easily work out correct parish from the geocding links.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I cannot easily move over 1000 images. And it doesn't exist as a CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- You could easily move them yourself, so stop wasting my time (and yours!) trying to persuade me to do it for you. I WON'T. That's because I don't have a bot, I have a semi-automated script that saves time with very large sets. There is no benefit here, as the set-up costs would far outweigh the benefits. As for why an exception? Because it exists, and is useful. The only reason I have bothered to comment this much is that upmerging to the district is downright dumb - and does far more damage than tolerating this case.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- A bot could easily move them, why should this be an exception, there is no settlement, CP or other geographical feature called "Burrator". Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- The category is fine, and other stuff (not) existing isn't a reason to change that. If you want to spend your time moving the files to the relevant subcats, go ahead - but I will not spend my time doing so. Don't rely on others to clean up after you.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- It would be easier to use the bot, there are over 1000 images! I have moved the other categories to the correct CPs, this CP does not exist, you though having a separate category for Shropshire district was a bad idea but that does exist as a district, not just a council. From w:User:Crouch, Swale/Grouped civil parishes no other grouped CP has a separate Commons cat and it could be questioned whether we need separate WP articles for them. Burrator is a ward with similar boundaries so should be OK for a WP article but as we use CPs and generally not wards, we shouldn't have this here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- IMO there is nothing wrong with the current arrangements, so will not waste my time on a bot-run for this - there are plenty of more serious issues around. If you want to change the image categorisation, change it (but get it right!). Regardless, the category for Burrator as a whole should be kept.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have moved the other categories to their formal CPs, I'd suggest that you use your bot to move all the images to the correct CATs. There is not legally a CP with that name, just a council which represents 3 CPs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- As far as its council is concerned it is already the civil parish for the area. But regardless of its current status, there is an entity called "Burrator", which can be used for categorisation purposes. If you want to split the content from Category:Burrator into the three CPs, go ahead. But don't upmerge content to the district, that's just idiotic.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- While it may be a more natural name than Swilland and Witnesham, which is from 2 different names, shouldn't we wait until it actually becomes a CP first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. I guess that  Keep. Enwiki has also en:Burrator. Any loose ends, @Crouch, Swale and Nilfanion: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- But as noted this isn't standard, we don't generally categorize by grouped parish council. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This article-like category in German language is far out of project scope and should be deleted. Ies (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Far out of project scope" - Gelesen aber nicht verstanden was der User meint ... und mir sagen will! - Die Kategorie beschreibt genau den eingestellten Sachverhalt. Das ist deine Sichtweise auf die Welt! - Aber eben nur "Eine" - Das ist eine auf deutsch eingestellte Seite - daher erfolgt mein "Diskuss" auf "Deutsch" - Da der "USER" meine erstellte Kategorie und deren Inhalt anscheinend in "Deutsch" gelesen - und wohl verstanden hat (Â !!! -Â ???) - ist es Brauch und fair hier jetzt nicht auf Englisch zu diskutieren! - Aus meiner Sicht macht es keinen Sinn alle Bilder auf irgendeinmal in Englich erstellte Kategorie bei Commons - die den Sachverhalt der Bilder nicht genau beschreibt - einzustellen! - Die Welt besteht nicht nur aus "Englich sprachigen Artikeln und Kategorien!" - Weil bei Commons so oft "alles Ăhnliche" - ohne weitere Differenzierung in eine vorhandene Kategorie eingestellt wird, sind die Kategorien oft nicht nach der Beschreibung der eingestellter Bilder - genau zuordbar und total ĂźberfĂźllt - oder "fraglich falsch befĂźllt". - Macht das alles so Sinn?? - Sonst kĂśnnte, wenn die Idee einer genauen beschreibenden Zuordnung - keine Rolle mehr spielt - alles nur wage beschrieben in eine Kategorie einstellen werden. Eine Kategorie - "Heirat von Mann und Frau" - macht ein Unterschied zu - "Heirat" - wo alle Geschlechter vertreten sind. Wenn alle meinen, so soll verfahren - alles in eine nicht genau beschreibende "Kategorie" einzustellen - ist das aus meiner Sicht auch ok - auch wenn ich "Zweifel" am "Sinn des Tuns" habe!
Bei "Commons" sollte in der Regel Englische Beschreibungen verwendet werden. "In der Regel" - bedeutet aber kein AusschluĂ - und ist auch nicht als absolute GrĂśĂe anzusehen. Die Ăbersetzung von "Heirat (Frau und Mann)" stellt auch kein Problem dar. Siehe - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T7638 (show translated titles per user language, based on interlanguage links). - Liebe GrĂźĂe vom ---Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- "Far out of project scope" - Gelesen aber nicht verstanden was der User meint ... und mir sagen will! - Die Kategorie beschreibt genau den eingestellten Sachverhalt. Das ist deine Sichtweise auf die Welt! - Aber eben nur "Eine" - Das ist eine auf deutsch eingestellte Seite - daher erfolgt mein "Diskuss" auf "Deutsch" - Da der "USER" meine erstellte Kategorie und deren Inhalt anscheinend in "Deutsch" gelesen - und wohl verstanden hat (Â !!! -Â ???) - ist es Brauch und fair hier jetzt nicht auf Englisch zu diskutieren! - Aus meiner Sicht macht es keinen Sinn alle Bilder auf irgendeinmal in Englich erstellte Kategorie bei Commons - die den Sachverhalt der Bilder nicht genau beschreibt - einzustellen! - Die Welt besteht nicht nur aus "Englich sprachigen Artikeln und Kategorien!" - Weil bei Commons so oft "alles Ăhnliche" - ohne weitere Differenzierung in eine vorhandene Kategorie eingestellt wird, sind die Kategorien oft nicht nach der Beschreibung der eingestellter Bilder - genau zuordbar und total ĂźberfĂźllt - oder "fraglich falsch befĂźllt". - Macht das alles so Sinn?? - Sonst kĂśnnte, wenn die Idee einer genauen beschreibenden Zuordnung - keine Rolle mehr spielt - alles nur wage beschrieben in eine Kategorie einstellen werden. Eine Kategorie - "Heirat von Mann und Frau" - macht ein Unterschied zu - "Heirat" - wo alle Geschlechter vertreten sind. Wenn alle meinen, so soll verfahren - alles in eine nicht genau beschreibende "Kategorie" einzustellen - ist das aus meiner Sicht auch ok - auch wenn ich "Zweifel" am "Sinn des Tuns" habe!
- Nachdem auch bei dieser Kategorie bei Wiki Commons ein LĂśschantrag besteht - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Man_and_woman_handshakes - stellt sich mir die Frage, was werden soll? - Das macht doch keinen Sinn - alle HändeschĂźttelbilder - in eine Kategorie einzustellen. Dann haben wir dort hunderte Bilder ohne klare Struktur. Was ist das Problem? - Bitte schreibt damit ich - und die Welt - es versteht! - Bitte lĂśscht nicht diese Bilder aus der Kategorie; wartet ab, bis Ăźber die "LĂśschung" - nach "Diskuss" entschieden wurde. - Danke! - Liebe GrĂźĂe vom - --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Grßà dich, Lupus, Da Du bisher hier mit dir selbst diskutierst, melde ich mich zu Wort
- "Far out of project scope" = Widerspricht den Projekt-Richtlinien hĂśchstgradig. Glaube es und beherze bitte, was dort steht:
Bevor man zum eigentlichen Anlegen (von Kategorien) ßbergeht, sollte man sich mit der existierenden Kategoriestruktur und den Regeln und Gebräuchen von Commons auskennen. Auch ist es wichtig, nachzusehen, ob es ein Kategorie-Schema ode rein Commons-Project zu dem betreffenden Thema gibt, und den dort gegebenenfalls festgelegten Konventionen zu folgen. - ok, diskutieren wir fair auf deutsch, Brauch ist aber, entgegen Deiner Meinung englisch.
- Doch, es ist Usus und macht Sinn, Dateien in eine bereits bestehende Kategorie einzusortieren.
- Ja, die Welt ist bunt und spricht 6500 bis 7000 Sprachen (gemäà Max-Planck-Institut), Wikipedia gibt es in 303 Sprachversionen (296 aktive). Konsens ist aber: das Schwesterprogramm commons spricht bevorzugt english
- Im Kategorienkopf steht idealerweise eine präzise Kurzbeschreibung des Inhaltes, u. U. auch in mehreren Sprachen, fßr Dich und die Welt (bzw. die der englischen Sprache nicht mächtige Welt, was ja kein Tadel ist).
- Wenn das nicht so ist, und Du meinst es sei fĂźr Dich und die Welt unverzichtbar steht es Dir frei, die Beschreibung bzw. Ăbersetzung einzufĂźgen, und zwar kurz (mit RĂźcksicht auf 296 andere Sprachversionen).
- Der Kategorienkopf ist aber nicht fßr längere Ausschweifungen gedacht und keinesfalls ein Ersatz fßr einen Wikipedia Artikel. Siehe Was Commons nicht ist (Punkte 1.1. und 1.2.).
- Ja. Bei commons sollten in der Regel englische Beschreibungen verwendet werden. Ja, es gibt Ausnahmen, vornehmlich lateinische Kategoriennamen in wissenschaftlichen Bereichen.
- Nein. Category:Man and woman handshakes hat keinen LĂśschantrag, sondern einen Umbenennungsantrag, wie Du ja selbst gesehen hast
Vorschlag: Wir nehmen vorläufig eine Weiterleitung auf die Category:Man and woman handshakes vor und warten ab, ob letztgenannte auch umbenannt wird. Wenn hier innerhalb von drei Tagen kein Widerspruch erfolgt, schreite ich zur Tat, es ist ja nichts unumkehrbar. Viele GrĂźĂe, --Bohème (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
english: I suggest a categoryredirect to Category:Man and woman handshakes. --Bohème (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done.- Deutsch: Wenn kein Widerspruch erfolgt, ist der nächste Schritt die LÜschung.
- English: next step shall be a deletion request.--Bohème (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry - eine eine "Drei Tages Frist" ist keine Norm! - und entsrpicht keinen Ăźbblichen Ablauf! Ich wiederspreche der LĂśschung! - --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
This article-like category in German language is far out of project scope and should be deleted. Ies (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Far out of project scope" - Gelesen aber nicht verstanden was der User meint ... und mir sagen will! - Die Kategorie beschreibt genau den eingestellten Sachverhalt. Das ist deine Sichtweise auf die Welt! - Aber eben nur "Eine" - Das ist eine auf deutsch eingestellte Seite - daher erfolgt mein "Diskuss" auf "Deutsch" - Da der "USER" meine erstellte Kategorie und deren Inhalt anscheinend in "Deutsch" gelesen - und wohl verstanden hat ( !!! - ???) - ist es Brauch und fair hier jetzt nicht auf Englisch zu diskutieren! - Aus meiner Sicht macht es keinen Sinn alle Bilder auf irgendeinmal in Englich erstellte Kategorie bei Commons - die den Sachverhalt der Bilder nicht genau beschreibt - einzustellen! - Die Welt besteht nicht nur aus "Englich sprachigen Artikeln und Kategorien!" - Weil bei Commons so oft "alles Ăhnliche" - ohne weitere Differenzierung in eine vorhandene Kategorie eingestellt wird, sind die Kategorien oft nicht nach der Beschreibung der eingestellter Bilder - genau zuordbar und total ĂźberfĂźllt - oder "fraglich falsch befĂźllt". - Macht das alles so Sinn?? - Sonst kĂśnnte, wenn die Idee einer genauen beschreibenden Zuordnung - keine Rolle mehr spielt - alles nur wage beschrieben in eine Kategorie einstellen werden. Eine Kategorie - "Heirat von Mann und Frau" - macht ein Unterschied zu - "Heirat" - wo alle Geschlechter vertreten sind. Wenn alle meinen, so soll verfahren - alles in eine nicht genau beschreibende "Kategorie" einzustellen - ist das aus meiner Sicht auch ok - auch wenn ich "Zweifel" am "Sinn des Tuns" habe! - Liebe GrĂźĂe vom --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Bei "Commons" sollte in der Regel Englische Beschreibungen verwendet werden. "In der Regel" - bedeutet aber kein AusschluĂ - und ist auch nicht als absolute GrĂśĂe anzusehen. Die Ăbersetzung von "Heirat (Frau und Mann)" stellt auch kein Problem dar. Siehe - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T7638 (show translated titles per user language, based on interlanguage links). - Liebe GrĂźĂe vom --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Far out of project scope" - Gelesen aber nicht verstanden was der User meint ... und mir sagen will! - Die Kategorie beschreibt genau den eingestellten Sachverhalt. Das ist deine Sichtweise auf die Welt! - Aber eben nur "Eine" - Das ist eine auf deutsch eingestellte Seite - daher erfolgt mein "Diskuss" auf "Deutsch" - Da der "USER" meine erstellte Kategorie und deren Inhalt anscheinend in "Deutsch" gelesen - und wohl verstanden hat ( !!! - ???) - ist es Brauch und fair hier jetzt nicht auf Englisch zu diskutieren! - Aus meiner Sicht macht es keinen Sinn alle Bilder auf irgendeinmal in Englich erstellte Kategorie bei Commons - die den Sachverhalt der Bilder nicht genau beschreibt - einzustellen! - Die Welt besteht nicht nur aus "Englich sprachigen Artikeln und Kategorien!" - Weil bei Commons so oft "alles Ăhnliche" - ohne weitere Differenzierung in eine vorhandene Kategorie eingestellt wird, sind die Kategorien oft nicht nach der Beschreibung der eingestellter Bilder - genau zuordbar und total ĂźberfĂźllt - oder "fraglich falsch befĂźllt". - Macht das alles so Sinn?? - Sonst kĂśnnte, wenn die Idee einer genauen beschreibenden Zuordnung - keine Rolle mehr spielt - alles nur wage beschrieben in eine Kategorie einstellen werden. Eine Kategorie - "Heirat von Mann und Frau" - macht ein Unterschied zu - "Heirat" - wo alle Geschlechter vertreten sind. Wenn alle meinen, so soll verfahren - alles in eine nicht genau beschreibende "Kategorie" einzustellen - ist das aus meiner Sicht auch ok - auch wenn ich "Zweifel" am "Sinn des Tuns" habe! - Liebe GrĂźĂe vom --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Ich bitte hier alle keine LĂśschung der Bilder in dieser Kategorie vorzunehmen, bis Ăźber den "LĂśschantrag" entschieden wurde. - Ich verstehe ferner nicht, warum man diese Kategorie (auch in Englisch lĂśscht) und diese in Deutsch lĂśschen will. "Hochzeitsring" ist etwas ganz anderes - als wenn "Frau und Mann sich gegenseitig einen Hochzeitssring" an den Finger anstecken! "Hier wird der vollzogene,kirchliche Hochzeitsakt beschrieben" und nicht ein Ring! - Ich kĂśnnte auch eine "Geige" in die Kategorie "Orchester" eistellen; aber nicht das Orchester in die "Kategorie Geige". Oder?! - Struktuiert dock klarer - dann haben wir bei Commons nicht hunderte Bilder in einer Kategorie, die den dargestellten Sachverhalt unzureichend beschreibt. Das macht so doch keinen Sinn! - Um was geht es in der Sache hier? - Das ist eine - und meine Sichtweise auf den Sachverhalt. - Liebe GrĂźĂe vom --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree.
This article-like category in German language is far out of project scope and should be deleted. Ies (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Far out of project scope" - Gelesen aber nicht verstanden was der User meint ... und mir sagen will! - Die Kategorie beschreibt genau den eingestellten Sachverhalt. Das ist deine Sichtweise auf die Welt! - Aber eben nur "Eine" - Das ist eine auf deutsch eingestellte Seite - daher erfolgt mein "Diskuss" auf "Deutsch" - Da der "USER" meine erstellte Kategorie und deren Inhalt anscheinend in "Deutsch" gelesen - und wohl verstanden hat ( !!! - ???) - ist es Brauch und fair hier jetzt nicht auf Englisch zu diskutieren! - Aus meiner Sicht macht es keinen Sinn alle Bilder auf irgendeinmal in Englich erstellte Kategorie bei Commons - die den Sachverhalt der Bilder nicht genau beschreibt - einzustellen! - Die Welt besteht nicht nur aus "Englich sprachigen Artikeln und Kategorien!" - Weil bei Commons so oft "alles Ăhnliche" - ohne weitere Differenzierung in eine vorhandene Kategorie eingestellt wird, sind die Kategorien oft nicht nach der Beschreibung der eingestellter Bilder - genau zuordbar und total ĂźberfĂźllt - oder "fraglich falsch befĂźllt". - Macht das alles so Sinn?? - Sonst kĂśnnte, wenn die Idee einer genauen beschreibenden Zuordnung - keine Rolle mehr spielt - alles nur wage beschrieben in eine Kategorie einstellen werden. Eine Kategorie - "Heirat von Mann und Frau" - macht ein Unterschied zu - "Heirat" - wo alle Geschlechter vertreten sind. Wenn alle meinen, so soll verfahren - alles in eine nicht genau beschreibende "Kategorie" einzustellen - ist das aus meiner Sicht auch ok - auch wenn ich "Zweifel" am "Sinn des Tuns" habe! - Liebe GrĂźĂe vom --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Bei "Commons" sollte in der Regel Englische Beschreibungen verwendet werden. "In der Regel" - bedeutet aber kein AusschluĂ - und ist auch nicht als absolute GrĂśĂe anzusehen. Die Ăbersetzung von "Heirat (Frau und Mann)" stellt auch kein Problem dar. Siehe - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T7638 (show translated titles per user language, based on interlanguage links). - Liebe GrĂźĂe vom --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Far out of project scope" - Gelesen aber nicht verstanden was der User meint ... und mir sagen will! - Die Kategorie beschreibt genau den eingestellten Sachverhalt. Das ist deine Sichtweise auf die Welt! - Aber eben nur "Eine" - Das ist eine auf deutsch eingestellte Seite - daher erfolgt mein "Diskuss" auf "Deutsch" - Da der "USER" meine erstellte Kategorie und deren Inhalt anscheinend in "Deutsch" gelesen - und wohl verstanden hat ( !!! - ???) - ist es Brauch und fair hier jetzt nicht auf Englisch zu diskutieren! - Aus meiner Sicht macht es keinen Sinn alle Bilder auf irgendeinmal in Englich erstellte Kategorie bei Commons - die den Sachverhalt der Bilder nicht genau beschreibt - einzustellen! - Die Welt besteht nicht nur aus "Englich sprachigen Artikeln und Kategorien!" - Weil bei Commons so oft "alles Ăhnliche" - ohne weitere Differenzierung in eine vorhandene Kategorie eingestellt wird, sind die Kategorien oft nicht nach der Beschreibung der eingestellter Bilder - genau zuordbar und total ĂźberfĂźllt - oder "fraglich falsch befĂźllt". - Macht das alles so Sinn?? - Sonst kĂśnnte, wenn die Idee einer genauen beschreibenden Zuordnung - keine Rolle mehr spielt - alles nur wage beschrieben in eine Kategorie einstellen werden. Eine Kategorie - "Heirat von Mann und Frau" - macht ein Unterschied zu - "Heirat" - wo alle Geschlechter vertreten sind. Wenn alle meinen, so soll verfahren - alles in eine nicht genau beschreibende "Kategorie" einzustellen - ist das aus meiner Sicht auch ok - auch wenn ich "Zweifel" am "Sinn des Tuns" habe! - Liebe GrĂźĂe vom --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Ich bitte hier alle keine LĂśschung der Bilder in dieser Kategorie vorzunehmen, bis Ăźber den "LĂśschantrag" entschieden wurde. - Ich verstehe ferner nicht, warum man diese Kategorie (auch in Englisch lĂśscht) und diese in Deutsch lĂśschen will. "Verlobungsring" ist etwas ganz anderes - als wenn "Frau und Mann sich gegenseitig einen Verlobungsring" anstecken! - Ich kĂśnnte auch eine "Geige" in die Kategorie "Orchester" eistellen; aber nicht das Orchester in die "Kategorie Geige". Oder?! - Struktuiert doch klarer - dann haben wir bei Commons nicht hunderte Bilder in einer Kategorie, die den dargestellten Sachverhalt unzureichend beschreibt. Das macht so doch keinen Sinn! - Um was geht es in der Sache hier? - Das ist eine - und meine Sichtweise auf den Sachverhalt. - Liebe GrĂźĂe vom --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Besides having too much text for a category, the title should be in English. The users commenting in German should understand that category titles are in English here because of a limitation of the software, not because of any prejudice against other languages. I think the category could be deleted instead of being renamed, because the files appear to have enough categories to describe them (unless you want to add Category:Human hands). --Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I doubt this cat is necessary. There is no similar (equivalent) subcat at Category:Male human anatomy. I think we should control our desire of expanding more and more women's body cats. (No, you did understand me. :) E4024 (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to do in this case. I completely see where you are coming from and I agree in general. On the other hand, we have Category:Women's arms, Category:Close-up photographs of women, Category:Women's faces, Category:Women's feet, Category:Women's hair, Category:Women hands, Category:Heads of women, Category:Women with bare legs. We don't have the equivalent Category:Men's anatomy, at least partly because we don't have Category:Men's arms, Category:Men's faces,Category:Men's hair, Category:Men hands, Category:Heads of men, Category:Men with bare legs, just Category:Close-up photographs of men and Category:Men's feet. We could create those categories for men's anatomy, or we could delete all of the categories for women's anatomy, but so long as they exist, doesn't it make sense to group them together? @E4024: Did you mean to nominate the child categories for deletion too? If we keep this, it should definitely be renamed Category:Women's anatomy or something else grammatically correct. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. A little mess. Current situation:
- Category:Women anatomy (typo), redirected to Category:Women's anatomy
- Category:Men's anatomy, redirected to Category:Male human anatomy
- Category:Female human anatomy
- Category:Male human anatomy
--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@E4024, Estopedist1, and Themightyquill: Stale, but could benefit from some kind of closure. I don't know that it is super critical what naming convention is used, as that can be modified based on experience so long as we get the structure straightened out. To that end, I think we should draw on the structure for people that is in place, with by gender and age levels and then the combinations to create the 'basic 9':
| People | Female humans | Male humans |
|---|---|---|
| Children | Girls | Boys |
| Adult humans | Women | Men |
For anatomy, this would mean a set like so:
| Human anatomy | Female human anatomy | Male human anatomy |
|---|---|---|
| Children's anatomy | Girls' anatomy | Boys' anatomy |
| Adult human anatomy | Women's anatomy | Men's anatomy |
We also have body categories. There is confusion in practice over what belongs where between anatomy and body, but presuming they remain distinct, we can then have:
| Human body | Female human body | Male human body |
|---|---|---|
Children's bodies |
Girls' bodies | Boys' bodies |
| Adult human body | Women's bodies | Men's bodies |
What do you think? I propose we start with this structure and work from there, if there is no objection. Josh (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Seems logical. Here are my comments:
- I made a few changes to the proposed categories to make the names grammatically correct. Feel free to revert if you don't like the changes.
- In some places the categories for age levels are broken down a little more than what is shown here, as you can see at Category:Humans by stage of development. Is there any value in breaking this down similarly?
- --Auntof6 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Category:Funerals by year has only this religious separation. Why do we have to single out "Islamic funerals"? (Because an IP wants so?) How will we categorize the pics from a ceremony held at a theatre of a -say- British, Turkish or Iranian "Muslim" actor, actress, director? (I really want a serious explanation to this passion about Islam, BTW.) E4024 (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- âE4024 "funerals by year" can be categorized by religions and also for Cat:Islamic funerals, can be categorized by year, i see nothing wrong with this. Same can be done for Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. Islamic funerals can be held everywhere, not just in mosques or cemeteries. Some state islamic funerals like in egypt or iran held in palaces or public area like streets. This cat is about Funerals of Muslims by year, and this rituals for them includes death customs like : Salat al-Janazah, Ghusl Mayyit etc. And about burial of notable people, exactly this funeral shows they was muslims. I did not added Nahed Hattar's funeral to Islamic funerals of it's year, nothing "Islamic" can be seen in that pic and he was not a muslim. --162.245.81.185 09:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know who is Nahed Attar, but your telling me "you did not include his funeral because he was not a Muslim" shows we have a different conception of categorization. I will wait for feedback from others. --E4024 (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- âE4024 "funerals by year" can be categorized by religions and also for Cat:Islamic funerals, can be categorized by year, i see nothing wrong with this. Same can be done for Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. Islamic funerals can be held everywhere, not just in mosques or cemeteries. Some state islamic funerals like in egypt or iran held in palaces or public area like streets. This cat is about Funerals of Muslims by year, and this rituals for them includes death customs like : Salat al-Janazah, Ghusl Mayyit etc. And about burial of notable people, exactly this funeral shows they was muslims. I did not added Nahed Hattar's funeral to Islamic funerals of it's year, nothing "Islamic" can be seen in that pic and he was not a muslim. --162.245.81.185 09:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. I am 
 Neutral. Only topical category tree at Category:Funerals by year. However, when I see the parent Category:Funerals by religion, I see here potential (eg Buddhist funerals by year), as already clarified by an anonym. Sidenotice: <by country>-categories already exist, eg Category:Buddhist funerals by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Another similar cat (like the Ottoman Medical corps) with a wrong capitalization. E4024 (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- We also have Category:Egyptian Army Medical corps which also needs a touch or two.
- OTOH we have Category:Medical corps of Israel. We need some harmonization among all these and other similars, right? --E4024 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- You are free to correct any spelling or wording. The exact official Arabic title is "ؼداع؊ اŮ؎د٠ات اŮءبŮŘŠ ŮŮŮŮات اŮŮ ŘłŮŘŘŠ".--Ashashyou (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. I am not sure about capitalization. Enwiki has joint-article en:Armed Forces Medical Service Department (Egypt), which also mentions "Egyptian Army Medical Corps".--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Redirect target makes no sense. "Manifestations" isn't related to "Demonstrations and protests". Mr. Guye (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's probably because "
manifestationsmanifestaciones" is the Spanish term for demonstrations/protests. So the question may be, do we keep the redirect from the non-English term or can this be made into a disambiguation category? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)- French as well. I'd lean toward keeping. I can't imagine anyone trying to categorize anything by the English word "manifestation," unless there's some jargon usage I'm unaware of. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're right: that's the French spelling, not Spanish. Maybe we should redirect as was done with Category:Manifestation. The main English meaning we might categorize by is appearances of supernatural beings or phenomena, but we have Category:Apparitions for that. We have quite a few categories with names in several languages that use the term to mean demonstration or protest: see this list (with English, French, and one I'm not sure of) and this one (in Spanish). Some are redirects to English-named cats, some are not. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- French as well. I'd lean toward keeping. I can't imagine anyone trying to categorize anything by the English word "manifestation," unless there's some jargon usage I'm unaware of. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Auntof6: I added clarifying hatnote to the nominated category (is a redirect), same is done at Category:Manifestation. We probably can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Currently this category includes genuine vehicles, and vessels, and submersible drones. I suggest that, since vessels and drones are not genuine vehicles, land vehicles, they each should be in categories of their own, under Category:Equipment of the United States Navy Geo Swan (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Commons categorizes watercraft under vehicles. The only categories for vessels appear to be for smaller containers such as jars. If we change the categorization here, it would need to change everywhere, which would be a very large project indeed. I support leaving this as it is. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Watercraft are genuine vehicles, as are aircraft and land-based vehicles. From Vehicle (sourced from McMillan Contemporary Dictionary): "A vehicle is a machine that transports people or cargo. Typical vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats), aircraft and spacecraft." Thus all of these should be categorized under 'vehicle'. Josh (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. It seems that  Keep.--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
There are lits of ships called "Atlas", is this the same as Category:Atlas 1 (ship)? Category:Atlas (tugboat) is also ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Judging by the ENI numbers and the image descriptions, there are two ships: Atlas & Atlas 1. Do you think Category:Atlas (crane ship) and Category:Atlas 1 (crane ship) would work? I think the tug is the en:SD Atlas and could be moved accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Only use the latter if there are multiple "Atlas 1" ships. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Atlas (crane ship) and Category:Atlas 1 (crane ship) are not used in Commons, just Category:Atlas (ship) and Category:Atlas 1 (ship) as long as we didn't find the year of completion. Two different crane ships, according the description. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Problem solved. Two ships, built in 1998 al Scheepswerf Maasdok in Maastricht. Both categories renamed. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Atlas (crane ship) and Category:Atlas 1 (crane ship) are not used in Commons, just Category:Atlas (ship) and Category:Atlas 1 (ship) as long as we didn't find the year of completion. Two different crane ships, according the description. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Only use the latter if there are multiple "Atlas 1" ships. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I have closed Category:Atlas (ship), Category:Atlas (tugboat) still needs disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- See also 'How to create a category for a ship' Category:Ships by name,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- ...........
1.In general, name the category with the ship's name as painted on the vessel (when the picture was taken). Sample: This photo shows "Isla de Botafoc" in 2008. The category is named "Isla de Botafoc (ship, 1980)". This even if the ship had other names before and afterwards.
2.The general format for category titles is "<name of ship> (ship, <year>)". <year> is the year the ship was completed, see Category:Ships by year built for further information. Samples: "Golden Hind (ship, 1973)" or "Pacific Dawn (ship, 1991)".
3."<name of ship> (ship, <year>)" is a naming convention rather than a disambiguation rule. "(ship, <year>)" is added even if there is no other category named "<name of ship>". The "<name of ship>" may already mean ship. Samples: "Norwood (ship, 1899)" or "Europic Ferry (ship, 1968)" or "Mein Schiff 2 (ship, 1997)" or "The Big Red Boat II (ship, 1966)".
4.Submarines use "<name> (submarine, <year>)" and tugs/towboats use "<name> (tugboat, <year>)". All other types are identified by category:Ships by type. Samples: "Akula (submarine, 1909)" or "Cape Romain (tugboat, 1979)".
5.Fishing ships display their license number. Categories for these have the format "<license number> <name> (ship, <year>)" (see Category:Fishing vessels by license number). Sample: This image shows "N206", the category is named "N206 Castle Bay (ship, 1965)".
6.Prefixes are generally omitted. Samples: "Titanic (ship, 1912)" instead of "RMS Titanic (ship, 1912)". Rather "Ammonia (ship, 1929)" than "DF Ammonia (ship, 1929)" or "SF Ammonia (ship, 1929)" . Exception: If the name as painted on the ship always includes the "prefix", the category name includes it as well.
Sample: MS. Volendam (ship, 1990) as the name on the vessel reads "MS. Volendam".
7.If there are several ships with the same name built in the same year, the place where the ship was built/location of the shipyard is added: "<name of ship> (ship, <year>, <place>)". Sample: "Mistral (ship, 1999, Saint-Nazaire)" as there are several Mistral (ship, 1999). In the rare case that there are several ships with the same name built the same year at the same place, the yard number is also added: "<name of ship> (ship, <year>, <place>, <yard number>)".
Sample: "Stena Transporter (ship, 1978, Ulsan, 649)" and Stena Transporter (ship, 1978, Ulsan, 651).
8.If you don't know the year the ship was built or can't find it, just use "<name> (ship)". Sample: "Ben Campbell (ship)".
--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Crouch, Swale, Stunteltje, and PjotrMahh1: The nominated category (Category:Atlas (ship)) is transformed to disambiguation page. Category:Atlas (tugboat) is redirected to Category:Atlas (tugboat, 1999). If there are several Atlas-named tugboats, the latter category should be redirected to Category:Atlas (ship). Objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- See the discussion in Category:Melbourne_(ship).--Stunteltje (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think both discussions can now be closed, all 3 pages have now been moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The only file in there could be carried to "women" and we could economize several unnecessary cats around this one file. E4024 (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Women is a subcategory of category:females, so if you want to create the Category:Portrait paintings of women from Lithuania you must add it under Category:Portrait paintings of females from Lithuania and Category:Portraits of women from Lithuania
and Category:Paintings of women from Lithuania. There is no way to economize categories; when you create a category you must link to all branch already existent because the tree must be consistent. The reason is that is a search instrument. If a category is named Category:Portrait paintings of females from Lithuania it must be possible to start from Category:paintings or category:portraits or category:females or category:Lithuania and clicking to reach Category:Portrait paintings of females from Lithuania. So is to economize that I uses Category:Portrait paintings of females from Lithuania and not Category:Portrait paintings of women from Lithuania E4024 --Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- This category fits well into the Category:Portrait paintings of women by country. I just renamed it to Category:Portrait paintings of females of Lithuania to be consistent with other similar categories. I guess, this discussion can be closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)