Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11
unique category: Why not only category:animations of geometry? Estopedist1 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- If we don't allow redundant categories and we don't allow unique categories that doesn't leave any allowable categories. Hyacinth (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Hyacinth: What is the difference between this content and Category:animations of geometry? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: None of the files at Category:Results of animations of geometry appear to be animations. Presumably they are film frames taken from animations, possibly the final frame. Hyacinth (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Hyacinth: What is the difference between this content and Category:animations of geometry? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Edward Haas: Can you offer any input here? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Question @Estopedist1, Hyacinth, Themightyquill, and Edward Haas: Is this similar to Category:Animated film screenshots then, just that these seem to depict geometric patterns? Is there value to differentiating them from Category:Geometric patterns just because there may be an associated animation that preceded/included them? Josh (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Empty translated-name of existing cat (Category:Bromine). DMacks (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Can't it just be redirected then? since it doesn't appear ambiguous (if it is it should become a DAB). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at Category:Chinese radicals and other grandparent cats of this one, they all seem to be for the characters themselves and not for files on the topic of the meaning of the character. And nor are they categorized according to those meanings. That is, they are strictly a typography portion of the commons category tree. DMacks (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The real question is, why should we keep it if it is empty? I agree that we can distinguish between the category for a character and the category for the concept that character represents. However, so long as there is no media in this category, it should be deleted until such media is added to Commons. @DMacks and Crouch, Swale: Josh (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at Category:Chinese radicals and other grandparent cats of this one, they all seem to be for the characters themselves and not for files on the topic of the meaning of the character. And nor are they categorized according to those meanings. That is, they are strictly a typography portion of the commons category tree. DMacks (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
No action needed - category is no longer empty. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC) {{cfdf]}
Unclear purpose, scope, definition and contents.
See Category talk:Iron_bridges. We have a long-term issue where naming and meaning are confused for bridges, particularly iron vs steel. This category is part of that, although also the least useful.
We have Category:Bridges by material, which is clearly an important high-level category for the description of bridges. It should include, as direct children, all of the major material-based types. Even where that is contradicted by COM:OVERCAT (hiding major groups beneath arbitrary sub-categories is unhelpful). This category is a worst-case example of that.
"Metal" bridges mean either iron or steel. There are a vanishingly small group of bridges in aluminium, maybe even something obscure in another metal (but examples escape me at present). "Iron" is also sub-divided importantly into wrought iron and cast iron. This is such an important distinction (they have contradictory properties, thus are used in quite different structural types) that we should treat those two materials as distinct and place them directly under "by materials", i.e. a three way split between cast iron, wrought iron and steel.
The content of this category does not represent any rational grouping:
"Footbridges" would seem to be inevitable here as a valid and defining group, but it tells us little otherwise. Like this category, "metal" just doesn't work as a grouping.
"Riveted" bridges is again, a valid and defining group in itself (both iron and steel were frequently riveted, concrete is not). But again, it plays no useful part in any navigational pattern. "Riveted steel" bridges would be firstly bridges by structural type (arch, girder, truss etc.), secondly by steel as a material and in a far third place, by riveting. "Riveting" alone as a supercategory, encompassing the three materials in all their forms, is of very little use.
"Iron" and "steel", as such broad terms, have all the problems already described.
The files included here are such a random collection as to be meaningless.
A more rational structure here would include deleting this category. Probably iron bridges and metal footbridges too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the problem. I accept that all bridges should eventually be placed in the correct iron or steel bridges category - ultimately, it should have no images - but if someone doesn't know whether a bridge is made of iron or steel, it's better to have it in Category:Metal bridges, no? And if we're going to have Category:Metal structures, it doesn't seem outlandish that we might have Category:Metal bridges as a subcategory. Sorry if I've failed to grasp something important from your comments above. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Is this category permanent or temporary? If it's temporary, is that really temporary (i.e. files are expected to be moved out of it), or is it actually permanent, as a group for "We can't identify this and have given up trying"?
- It's named here, and populated, as if it's permanent i.e. a useful sub-layer of grouping between "materials" and either "iron" or "steel". But it doesn't work for that, as discussed. It's just not a useful grouping to identify bridges as "metal", but no more than that. We need to either go deeper, or we might as well not bother to identify their material.
- If really temporary, it should be named as "Unidentified bridges of either wrought iron or steel", and cast-iron should be excluded (as they're identifiable from their shape).
- We can place both "steel bridges", "iron bridges" et al. directly into "metal structures" just as well, without a superfluous extra layer. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Holger1959, who created the cat is no longer active on Wikipedia and Commons (though his work lives on since many german wikipedians still work heavily with his lists and scripts). I am ambivalent about the cat in questions - decide on best judgement. --Ordercrazy (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley and Themightyquill: This appears to be a valid category. We have an established tree of Category:Metal objects as a parent to objects made of metal, so it makes sense to have Category:Metal bridges for all bridges made of metal regardless of type, with subcategories for specific metals as appropriate. This is not a 'temporary' category, though it would be good for as many contents as possible to be sorted by specific metal as research permits, but both new and old content which has yet to be identified need a home and so I suggest we keep this category as is. Josh (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep useful and valid category. I agree with Josh. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It's useful to have the general category, such as to fit under other metal-related categories that might not be limited to iron or steel. I do think that the various "iron or steel" categories could be replaced with general "metal" categories because combining different things, even if similar, is not a good practice.
- If people are concerned about specifying which metal is involved, we can add a {{Categorise}} template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
La région Rhône-Alpes n'existe plus. Le contenu de cette catégorie devrait être transféré dans category:Railway lines in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, et la catégorie supprimée. Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've added this discussion to several other related categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Fr.Latreille and Themightyquill: Rhône-Alpes is a former region, but we should not just delete it and its sub-topics and move the content to Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Instead, Category:Rhône-Alpes should remain as a category under Category:Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes and likewise Category:Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes should remain as a category under Category:Railway lines in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (I have added it to this category). Josh (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the point in categorizing by non-existent administrative divisions, unless they are of longstanding cultural-historical significance. en:Rhône-Alpes was created in 1982. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I am not sure how we can successfully come up with an arbitrary basis for determining which historical entities should be categorized and which not based on how long-standing or culturally significant they are. I would venture the only standard should be whether or not we have media relevant to the entity in question. If we have media depicting rail lines during 1982-2015 when Rhone-Alpes existed, then this category should be retained. Merging that media into a category for an entity that did not even exist at the time the media depicts makes no sense at all. Rhone-Alpes categories should probably be linked to Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes categories, but not merged into them.
- Additionally, even we were to have some kind of importance threshold, if a first-level country subdivision that was home to more than 5 million people for 33 years doesn't pass muster, that threshold is way too high, in my opinion. The point it though, it shouldn't be my opinion or yours on which arbitrary line is okay. It should be simple question of do we have media on this topic from this place and time. If yes, the category is correct and should be retained. If no, then it serves no purpose and should be deleted. Josh (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see the point in categorizing by non-existent administrative divisions, unless they are of longstanding cultural-historical significance. en:Rhône-Alpes was created in 1982. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: While I see your point, all of the content in Category:Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes is already sub-categorized by narrower location, so there's no reason to keep this category. I think that's the same for many categories in Category:Rhône-Alpes. Obvious exceptions would be things like Category:Buses of TER Rhône-Alpes. For instance the flags of Rhône-Alpes in could stay, but the subcategories like Category:Flags of Loire could be removed. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill, I definitely see what you are saying, and it certainly presents as a bit of a conundrum. If all of Rhone-Alpes railways are diffused by department (which makes some sense), but since those same departments are now part of Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes instead, a lot of the content in those categories will not be really of Rhone-Alpes (everything since 2015). So then there is the question where should a sub-division be sorted if the sub-division has been part of multiple parent divisions over time? Should it only be under its current or most recent parent, or under all of its parents? That question is a lot bigger than this particular category though.
- But let's presume we go forward with removing Railway lines in Ain (and the rest) from Rhone-Alpes, and only list them under their current parent, Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes. The first file I found in Railway lines in Ain is File:Vélorail - Pugieu (Ain).JPG, a picture from 2010 (in Rhone-Alpes). Currently, it lives fine where it is, in the Rhone-Alpes tree, but if Railway lines in Ain is moved out of that tree, this file is then no longer correctly in it, and so would then need to be added separately back to Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes. This would of course apply to a lot of images. This is not a problem and maybe it is the way to go if we decide sub-territories only belong under their current parent, but it wouldn't obviate the need to keep this category for those images that really are from that region, not the current one.
- Alternatively, one could create a sub such as Ain, Rhône-Alpes under Ain for images specific to its time under that parent, with Ain itself living only under Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Then the Rhone-Alpes-specific cat could live as a geographic sub of this category. But again, that would mean keeping this category.
- Either way, the fact is that we have images of railways of Rhône-Alpes that are not images of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Thus this category should be kept to retain that connection for those images. If we want to re-work how the sub-categories are arranged, that is fine, but the files of railways Rhône-Alpes should remain somewhere within this category under whatever new structure is adopted. This category therefore should be kept. 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Josh (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Some countries have had regional sudivisions like this change many many times. I don't think it's reasonable to keep them all for all content. Keep general content in the most current geographic categories, and keep only content specifically related to former geographic categories (maps, flags, etc) in those ones. ---- Themightyquill (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Currently almost all of these images are of fireboats in fresh water, or in brackish estuary water - ie, not "at sea".
Second, Wouldn't something like Category:Fireboat salutes or Category:Saluting fireboats be a better choice? While fireboats use water cannons for fighting maritime fires, and for ceremonial salutes, water cannon are also mounted on big trucks, for fighting rioters.
If someone were to organize a salute from the water cannons on a vehicle normally used for fighting rioters, I think it would be best if those images were in a completely different category. Geo Swan (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, how do we distinguish from Category:Ships demonstrating water cannons ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Good question, I didn't notice Category:Ships demonstrating water cannons.
I don't know the difference between demonstrating and saluting either.
If there is no difference, then only one category is necessary.
I'm pinging Docu, who started the older category, in 2012. Geo Swan (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Good question, I didn't notice Category:Ships demonstrating water cannons.
Category:Water cannon salutes at sea Category:Ships demonstrating water cannons | Merge into | Category:Watercraft using water cannons | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
@Geo Swan and Themightyquill: Not sure all of these are actually fireboats, so watercraft is more inclusive. Also not sure that we can always know the purpose of cannon use in an image, so this is again inclusive and if specific uses warrant categories they can be subs of this. | ||||
Josh (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
- Category:Watercraft using water cannons satisfies my concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- I concur with move/merge to Category:Watercraft using water cannons. Senator2029 07:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
IMO it is nonsense to disambiguate this because of a) subcats that have to dab'd too and b) of many interwiki links pointing here. Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters can be subcats of this one and everything is fine. Achim (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Same applies for Category:Crater lakes. --Achim (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- You posted a little bit ahead of me, but not the same list as I was going to suggest. I suggest keeping Category:Craters and Category:Crater lakes as disambiguations because, as happened on English Wikipedia, some well-meaning editor will probably just re-create them again anyway. But we should remove the array of Craters by continent, Craters by country, Craters in (country name), Crater lakes by continent, Crater lakes by country, Crater lakes in (country name), etc. I hadn't assembled that whole list yet. For background on the related cleanup on English Wikipedia, see w:User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization_of_craters. Ikluft (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ian, I agree that it is helpful to distinguish. We should have and use the three cats Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters. The question is: Does a disambig suit our needs better that keeping these 3 cats as subcat members of Category:Craters in a regular manner, same way like d:Q109391 and d:Q55818 are subclasses of d:Q3240715. Regards, --Achim (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, do what you want (the category system in general isn't worth much anyway...), I will generate a list of pages pointing to these disambigs that have to be fixed then. --Achim (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the definition of a disambiguation category prohibits any contents including subcategories. Ideally we'd want to limit the subcategories to Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters, and then force subcategorization into those. Unfortunately, experience has shown that if Category:Craters isn't a disambiguation then people will drop stuff in it, partly because tools like HotCat show the name without a definition. (HotCat re-prompts for the suggested alternatives if a disambiguation is selected.) Given those constraints, the suggestion for reorganizing the categories that I was working on would look like this...
(total: keep 2 as disambiguation, delete 101)- Category:Craters Keep as disambiguation
- Category:Crater lakes Keep as disambiguation
- Category:Breached crater rims Delete
- Category:Crater floor deposits Delete
- Category:Crater floors Delete
- Category:Crater lakes by continent Delete
- Category:Crater lakes by country Delete
- Category:Crater lakes in Armenia Delete
- Category:Crater lakes in Cameroon Delete
- Category:Crater lakes in Costa Rica Delete
- Category:Crater lakes in Ecuador Delete
- Category:Crater lakes in El Salvador Delete
- Category:Crater lakes in Ethiopia Delete
- Category:Crater lakes in Germany Delete
- Category:Crater lakes in Hungary Delete
- Category:Crater lakes in New Zealand Delete
- Category:Crater lakes in Turkey Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Africa Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Argentina Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Asia by country Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Asia Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Australia Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Bolivia Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Chile Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of China Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Colombia Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Europe by country Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Europe Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of France Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Guatemala Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Iceland Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of India Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Indonesia Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Iran Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Italy Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Japan Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Kenya Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Mexico Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Nicaragua Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of North America by country Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of North America Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of North Korea Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Oceania Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Portugal Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of Russia Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of South America by country Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of South America Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of South Korea Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of the Philippines Delete
- Category:Crater lakes of the United States Delete
- Category:Crater rims Delete
- Category:Craters by continent Delete
- Category:Craters by country Delete
- Category:Craters of Africa by country Delete
- Category:Craters of Africa Delete
- Category:Craters of Alaska Delete
- Category:Craters of Algeria Delete
- Category:Craters of Argentina Delete
- Category:Craters of Arizona Delete
- Category:Craters of Asia by country Delete
- Category:Craters of Asia Delete
- Category:Craters of Australia Delete
- Category:Craters of Bolivia Delete
- Category:Craters of Brazil Delete
- Category:Craters of Chile Delete
- Category:Craters of Egypt Delete
- Category:Craters of Estonia Delete
- Category:Craters of Europe by country Delete
- Category:Craters of Europe Delete
- Category:Craters of Finland Delete
- Category:Craters of France Delete
- Category:Craters of Germany Delete
- Category:Craters of Greece Delete
- Category:Craters of Hawaii Delete
- Category:Craters of Iceland Delete
- Category:Craters of India Delete
- Category:Craters of Indonesia Delete
- Category:Craters of Israel Delete
- Category:Craters of Japan Delete
- Category:Craters of Kenya Delete
- Category:Craters of Mexico Delete
- Category:Craters of Mongolia Delete
- Category:Craters of Namibia Delete
- Category:Craters of New Zealand Delete
- Category:Craters of North America Delete
- Category:Craters of Oceania Delete
- Category:Craters of Russia Delete
- Category:Craters of Saudi Arabia Delete
- Category:Craters of South Africa Delete
- Category:Craters of South America Delete
- Category:Craters of Spain Delete
- Category:Craters of Sweden Delete
- Category:Craters of Tajikistan Delete
- Category:Craters of the Americas Delete
- Category:Craters of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Delete
- Category:Craters of the Netherlands Delete
- Category:Craters of the United Kingdom Delete
- Category:Craters of the United States by state Delete
- Category:Craters of the United States Delete
- Category:Craters of Turkey Delete
- Category:Craters of Ukraine Delete
- Category:Craters of Utah Delete
- Category:Crater walls Delete
- So now you can see why that list was taking a little while to assemble... Ikluft (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's fine. So we will have an assignment problem if the cats of 49 wikis + 42 wikis are regular ones linked with 2 disambiguating cats on commons. Do you intend disambiguating these 91 cats as well? Btw, on a wiki I saw a disambig page distinguishing between -Greek vessels and -landforms, then keeping the landforms as regular cats. But I think we will have to live with many wikis not disambiguating "Craters" and "Crater lakes" except just Commons. Good luck! --Achim (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- This cleanup was already done on the English Wikipedia in 2009 and is getting maintenance cleanup right now. On Wikidata, the craters category is a disambiguation matching English Wikipedia. Most other wikis tend to follow the big ones. We can proceed one step at a time, and the next step is to clean up the crater ambiguity on Commons. Ikluft (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- You are not the first one who tries to transfer en:wp naming or structures to Commons. I'm tired, for the record I strongly Oppose your suggestions and am off now. --Achim (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's about reducing ambiguity. Nevermind that the same problem exists on multiple wikis - we're dealing with Human nature. If you're giving up, please withdraw your CfD. Ikluft (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- You are not the first one who tries to transfer en:wp naming or structures to Commons. I'm tired, for the record I strongly Oppose your suggestions and am off now. --Achim (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- This cleanup was already done on the English Wikipedia in 2009 and is getting maintenance cleanup right now. On Wikidata, the craters category is a disambiguation matching English Wikipedia. Most other wikis tend to follow the big ones. We can proceed one step at a time, and the next step is to clean up the crater ambiguity on Commons. Ikluft (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's fine. So we will have an assignment problem if the cats of 49 wikis + 42 wikis are regular ones linked with 2 disambiguating cats on commons. Do you intend disambiguating these 91 cats as well? Btw, on a wiki I saw a disambig page distinguishing between -Greek vessels and -landforms, then keeping the landforms as regular cats. But I think we will have to live with many wikis not disambiguating "Craters" and "Crater lakes" except just Commons. Good luck! --Achim (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- I will post a CfD as listed above for removal of ambiguous unqualified crater-related categories after this one is closed. It currently blocks my proposal by holding the head of the category tree under process discussion. Ikluft (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the definition of a disambiguation category prohibits any contents including subcategories. Ideally we'd want to limit the subcategories to Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters, and then force subcategorization into those. Unfortunately, experience has shown that if Category:Craters isn't a disambiguation then people will drop stuff in it, partly because tools like HotCat show the name without a definition. (HotCat re-prompts for the suggested alternatives if a disambiguation is selected.) Given those constraints, the suggestion for reorganizing the categories that I was working on would look like this...
- There's no logical reason for Category:Craters to be a disambiguation page. There are different variety of craters, but they are all craters by the same definition. Disambiguation are for wholly unrelated things by the same name. Yes, people might put content into Category:Craters instead of the appropriate subcategories, just as they put content into Category:Vehicles instead of the appropriate subcategories. But we don't turn every category with sub-categories into a disambiguation page. If people put it there, it has a greater chance of being sorted appropriately by someone who can properly identify what time of crater it is. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- There is logic to it. See the "Categorization_of_craters" essay for background if you haven't already. The Category:Vehicles is a false analogy - vehicles are made of wheels, frames and (usually) motors and have much in common. Craters have a long history across the wikis of causing confusion among well-meaning editors over the apparent similarity in being forms of depressions, but being otherwise unrelated except by a broad definition in the English dictionary which separately lists impact, volcanic and explosion craters in order to fit them in because they're so different. The confusion goes further as people unfamiliar with craters mistake them for other kinds of depressions, such as sinkholes, and vice versa. It is worthwhile to provide some additional help to well-meaning editors. We also have the problem that tools like HotCat don't provide definition info, but will re-prompt for alternatives for a disambiguation category. Disambiguation categories are required to be empty. It would have been ideal if there had been a way for a disambiguation category to contain only their listed alternatives. But that option is not available - since the 3 kinds of craters actually have Category:depression (geology) as their common factor, this isn't a bad choice. Of the imperfect choices available, it's a good compromise which provides assistance for well-meaning editors to avoid a recurring trap of confusion. Ikluft (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the different types of craters are conceptual enough to have a container category so there should probably be a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Here's a new update on my estimate of what a CfD reorg would take to implement this, after looking at how the categories are used. (total 128 categories = 3 disambiguation + 44 rename + 34 merge + 12 delete redirects + 35 delete ambiguous)
- Keep as disambiguation categories
- Keep Category:Craters as disambiguation
- Keep Category:Crater lakes as disambiguation
- Keep Category:Crater floors as disambiguation
- Rename categories (change "in" to "of" for consistency)
- Rename Category:Crater lakes in Armenia to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Armenia
- Rename Category:Crater lakes in Cameroon to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Cameroon
- Rename Category:Crater lakes in Costa Rica to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Costa Rica
- Rename Category:Crater lakes in Ecuador to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Ecuador
- Rename Category:Crater lakes in Ethiopia to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Ethiopia
- Rename Category:Crater lakes in Germany to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Germany
- Rename Category:Crater lakes in Kamchatka to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Kamchatka
- Rename Category:Crater lakes in New Zealand to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of New Zealand
- Rename Category:Crater lakes in Oregon to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Oregon
- Rename Category:Crater lakes in Turkey to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Turkey
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Africa to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Africa
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Alaska to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Alaska
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Argentina to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Argentina
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Asia by country to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Asia by country
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Asia to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Asia
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Bolivia to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Bolivia
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Chile to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Chile
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of China to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of China
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Colombia to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Colombia
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Europe by country to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Europe by country
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Europe to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Europe
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of France to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of France
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Guatemala to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Guatemala
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Iceland to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Iceland
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Indonesia to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Indonesia
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Iran to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Iran
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Italy to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Italy
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Japan to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Japan
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Mexico to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Mexico
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Nicaragua to Category:Volcsanic crater lakes of Nicaragua
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of North America by country to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of North America by country
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of North America to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of North America
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of North Korea to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of North Korea
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Portugal to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Portugal
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of Russia to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Russia
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of South America by country to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of South America by country
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of South America to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of South America
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of South Korea to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of South Korea
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of the Philippines to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of the Philippines
- Rename Category:Crater lakes of the United States to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of the United States
- Rename Category:Crater lakes (volcanism) in Kenya to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of Kenya
- Rename Category:Crater rims of volcanoes in Alaska to Category:Volcanic crater rims of Alaska
- Rename Category:Craters of Campi Flegrei to Category:Volcanic craters of Campi Flegrei
- Rename Category:Craters of Turkey to Category:Volcanic craters of Turkey
- Merge categories
- Merge Category:Crater lakes in Arizona to Category:Lakes of Arizona
- Merge Category:Crater lakes in the United States by state to Category:Volcanic crater lakes of the United States (from rename above)
- Merge Category:Crater lakes of Kenya to Category:Lakes of Kenya
- Merge Category:Craters by continent to Category:Landforms by continent
- Merge Category:Craters by country to Category:Landforms by country
- Merge Category:Craters of Africa by country to Category:Landforms of Africa by country
- Merge Category:Craters of Africa to Category:Landforms of Africa
- Merge Category:Craters of Alaska to Category:Landforms of Alaska
- Merge Category:Craters of Algeria to Category:Landforms of Algeria
- Merge Category:Craters of Asia by country to Category:Landforms of Asia by country
- Merge Category:Craters of Asia to Category:Landforms of Asia
- Merge Category:Craters of Australia to Category:Landforms of Australia
- Merge Category:Craters of Bolivia to Category:Landforms of Bolivia
- Merge Category:Craters of Brazil to Category:Landforms of Brazil
- Merge Category:Craters of Canada to Category:Landforms of Canada
- Merge Category:Craters of Chad to Category:Landforms of Chad
- Merge Category:Craters of Chile to Category:Landforms of Chile
- Merge Category:Craters of Egypt to Category:Landforms of Egypt
- Merge Category:Craters of Estonia to Category:Landforms of Estonia
- Merge Category:Craters of Europe by country to Category:Landforms of Europe by country
- Merge Category:Craters of Europe to Category:Landforms of Europe
- Merge Category:Craters of Finland to Category:Landforms of Finland
- Merge Category:Craters of France to Category:Round landforms of France
- Merge Category:Craters of Germany to Category:Landforms of Germany
- Merge Category:Craters of Greece to Category:Landforms of Greece
- Merge Category:Craters of Iceland to Category:Volcanic landforms in Iceland
- Merge Category:Craters of India to Category:Landforms of India
- Merge Category:Craters of Indonesia to Category:Landforms of Indonesia
- Merge Category:Craters of Kenya to Category:Landforms of Kenya
- Merge Category:Craters of Mexico to Category:Landforms of Mexico
- Merge Category:Craters of Mongolia to Category:Landforms of Mongolia
- Merge Category:Craters of Namibia to Category:Landforms of Namibia
- Merge Category:Craters of South America to Category:Landforms of South America
- Merge Category:Craters of the Netherlands to Category:Landforms of the Netherlands
- Remove redirect categories with ambiguous unqualified uses of crater
- Delete Category:Crater lakes in Asia
- Delete Category:Crater lakes in Chile
- Delete Category:Crater lakes in Japan
- Delete Category:Crater lakes of Cameroon
- Delete Category:Crater lakes of Canada
- Delete Category:Crater lakes of Costa Rica
- Delete Category:Crater lakes of Ecuador
- Delete Category:Crater lakes of Ethiopia
- Delete Category:Crater lakes of Germany
- Delete Category:Craters in Asia
- Delete Category:Craters in Bolivia
- Remove categories with ambiguous unqualified uses of crater
- Delete Category:Breached crater rims
- Delete Category:Crater floor deposits
- Delete Category:Crater lakes by continent
- Delete Category:Crater lakes by country
- Delete Category:Crater lakes in El Salvador
- Delete Category:Crater lakes in Hungary
- Delete Category:Crater lakes in Portugal
- Delete Category:Crater lakes of Australia
- Delete Category:Crater lakes of India
- Delete Category:Crater lakes of Oceania
- Delete Category:Crater rims
- Delete Category:Crater rims in Alaska
- Delete Category:Crater rims in Japan
- Delete Category:Craters of Argentina
- Delete Category:Craters of Arizona
- Delete Category:Craters of Hawaii
- Delete Category:Craters of Israel
- Delete Category:Craters of Japan
- Delete Category:Craters of New Zealand
- Delete Category:Craters of North America
- Delete Category:Craters of Oceania
- Delete Category:Craters of Russia
- Delete Category:Craters of Saudi Arabia
- Delete Category:Craters of South Africa
- Delete Category:Craters of Spain
- Delete Category:Craters of Sweden
- Delete Category:Craters of Tajikistan
- Delete Category:Craters of the Americas
- Delete Category:Craters of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Delete Category:Craters of the United Kingdom
- Delete Category:Craters of the United States
- Delete Category:Craters of the United States by state
- Delete Category:Craters of Ukraine
- Delete Category:Craters of Utah
- Delete Category:Crater walls
- If I understand correctly, since all those categories will need notices posted in them, it has to be a separate CfD/CfR/CfM reorg after this CfD closes. I don't think there's a way for this CfD to turn around and redefine itself to such a wider scope. Ikluft (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep though into a disambiguation page with all other pages resolved per list above. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The following categories should be deleted:
Finland already has a comprehensive categorisation structure based on the regions (Finnish: maakunta, Swedish: landskap; Wikidata:Q193512) and municipalitites (Finnish: kunta, Swedish: kommun; Wikidata:Q856076). Adding a sub-region (Finnish: seutukunta, Swedish: ekonomisk region; Wikidata:Q762882) based layer between them only makes it harder to find any actual content without providing any actual improvement to the category structure. In addition, the sub-regions are used only in some strictly administrative purposes in Finland; the term is not in every-day use in Finland. (Most of the Finns probably do not know in which sub-region they are actually living in.) ––Apalsola t • c 11:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Added Category:Sub-regions of Lapland, Finland. ––Apalsola t • c 10:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Apalsola: Not sure I agree just yet. Sub-regions are an officially recognized level of administrative territorial subdivision. While I wholly agree that extraneous unofficial or amorphous groupings is to be avoided ('northwestern Foo'), official subdivision levels are usually a valid way to organize things by location within a country. It does not seem like there is much use of this level on Commons, but that does not make it an invalid level to organize by. Josh (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- In Finland, municipalities are unquestionably the most important level of administrative territorial subdivision. In contrary, subregions are the least important. The risk in adding subregion categories is that the (due to Hierarchic principle) municipality categories (which are the ones that people most likely recognise) would end up being buried somewhere beneath the subregion categories and that would just make finding content more complicated.
- We also have to remember that we are talking about a country with a population of only ca. 5.5 million. There are only 19 regions and 310 municipalities in the whole country and municipality names alone are ambiguous (no municipalities share the same name). Thus, I do not think subregion categories would add any real benefit. ––Apalsola t • c 01:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
If pornography exists for every conceivable topic, then "rule 34" applies to everything, which is an unreasonably large category. Also, juvenile bulldhit that we don't need here. Thanks anyway. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Per the wikipedia article, Rule 34 is a subcategory of erotic art and fanart. The definition doesn't mean "every erotic art." It only applies to erotic art that parodies an already existing (and usually non-erotic) thing, such as fictional characters, store brands, celebrities, anthropomorphic animals (eg yiff), mythical beings, etc. There's no other term for this concept, and it's a distinct category in most erotic art website or forums (See xkcd, reddit, and one of the many image boards based on rule 34). And I wouldn't call it juvenile, as it's a type of adult art. But even if you think it's obscene, that's not a valid reason to remove something here, as that would be censorship. VF9 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Censorship? Hold on there, little fella. No one is saying the images should be deleted, just the category. And not because it is obscene, just because it is not a useful category. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Uncategorizing information makes it harder to find and denies the fact that the files are part of such category, which is information suppression. Deciding to do so on the arbitrarily basis that the information is objectionable (or "juvenile bulldhit," as you put it) is definitely censorship. VF9 (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- This category is problematic with its current content. (odd things that were made erotic, which is too broad and subjective for a category) The category could exist for files that specifically refer to rule 34. For example, https://www.xkcd.com/305/ if it had a compatible license. If we don't have such files, there is no need for this category. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment User:VF9 has been blocked as the sockpuppet of a previously blocked user. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- User:World's Lamest Critic has been globally blocked for "Cross-wiki abuse: Blocked on two wikis for unrelated incidents of publicising other users non-public information". Tm (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Seriously, there are not many files within this category so the claim of ‘applying to everything’ is invalid as of today. It is clearly that only very few files in Wikimedia Commons which are really non-erotic subjects turned erotic images could be categorised as Rule 34. 🐱💬 08:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per above, now somebody please close this ancient discussion that’s been grinding on for two freaking years. Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Migrate to category:erotic art by subject to better integrate with existing categories. Arlo James Barnes 06:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- How is that a logical migration? That sounds like a super-category (albeit a perfectly good one on its own). Dronebogus (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- 'if it exists, there is porn of it' sounds a lot like 'for every subject that erotic art can depict, there is erotic art' which implies a possibility to break down that set of media by subject. Arlo James Barnes 09:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Valid category and after so many years none of the concerns has materialized. Tm (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Likely bad and not English name. What does it mean in Spanish? Estopedist1 (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:PiramideStatus | Move to/Rename as | Category:Social pyramid diagrams | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
@Estopedist1: Social pyramid (literally status pyramid), it seems to be for 7 versions of an animated GIF, plus a pyramid of conflict escalation thrown in. | ||||
Josh (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
- enwiki has the article en:Population pyramid. In Commons we have Category:Population pyramids. Actually, the question is: do we need those images at all? Seems to be some sort of personal artwork, except the pyramid of conflict escalation--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 and Joshbaumgartner: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Sbb1413 I think we should go forward with the rename. If, as Estopedist1 (talk · contribs) states, the contents are out of scope, handle them with a COM:DR and once the category is empty, it can be speedy deleted. Josh (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Not useful Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Hungarian slang. Exists Category:Ultras--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete It is hungarian slang (B-közép), meaningless translate. --Pallerti (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep Ultras as a noun does not exist in Hungary. Anyway Ultras does not mean the same as B center. B center means a place in Hungary (B közép). The place at the footbal stadium, where the footbal fans stay. It does not mean people, it means a place. --Elekes Andor (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Elekes Andor (talk · contribs) makes a valid point, that the booster section (called different things in different countries I am sure) where the super fans live is fair to be separately categorized from the fans themselves. That said, in this case we have only one file, which is video of a football match, not particularly showing the booster section/B center at all (it has some stands in the background but seems it was filmed from the booster section?) and so really shouldn't be categorized in this cat. This would leave the category empty and needing to be deleted. Alternatively, if it is populated properly, the name should be changed to a more inclusive and descriptive title such as Category:Booster sections or such. So I vote delete unless it is populated in which case rename. Josh (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Rename to Category:University and college sports by sport or just Category:University and college sports? Or Category:Sports in universities and colleges by sport ? I'd say the "College (sport) in the United States" categories can remain unchanged, since that's regional usage. Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- stale discussion. @Themightyquill: the parent is Category:Sports in universities and colleges. I also wonder that we haven't something like enwiki en:Category:Sport by university or college Estopedist1 (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Bad category name. Wouldn't a better name for this and other subcats of Category:Hydronymy by color be something like Category:Bodies of water named for the color black (or blue, or whatever color the category is for)? Auntof6 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Agreed. Hydronymy is the study of the names of bodies of water, not an index of the names themselves, so at a minimum, change to 'hydronyms'. However, I am dubious of the value of this entire line of indexing. I know we have a certain amount of namesake categorization on Commons, but it seems more a way to use categories to create lists than a meaningful way to curate media files. One of my problems with this kind of categorization is that it is making a statement of fact (claim) about a subject that can't be inherently substantiated by the media files themselves. Is the Black River really named for its blackish color, or was it named after a person named Black? Categorization is not generally given citations, so it is hard to track down the legitimacy of such a claim. Josh (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Do you think we should do away with these, or find better names? A better naming convention might be "Bodies of water named black". That could include such bodies no matter which meaning of black they were named for. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Summary: The subcategories of this category need a clear distinction between communes and villages.
Current situation: In Romania, villages are organized in communes, which are themselves organized in counties. Further documentation: en:Administrative divisions of Romania.
As of current date, the naming convention for Romanian communes and villages on Commons is:
- communes go by the following title:
<commune name>, <county name>
. - villages go by the following title:
<village name>, <county name>
. - multiple villages with the same name in a county are disambiguated using the commune name, e.g.
<village name> (<commune name>), <county name>
.
As of current date, the categorization convention for Romanian communes and villages on Commons is (with the exception of one county):
- communes are categorized in
[[Category:Communes in <county name> County]]
- villages are categorized in
[[Category:<commune name>, <county name>]]
and[[Category:Villages in <county name> County]]
Problem: When a commune and a village (which are two distinct entities) share their names (which is almost universal, because communes are usually named based on their seat village), the same category contains files and categories related to the commune and files and categories related to the village.
Example featuring the problem: The problem is beautifully illustrated on Category:Cozmești, Iași. What happens here:
- Category is linked to the Wikidata item about the commune (d:Q5114265). The Wikidata item about the village (d:Q2718462) is not – and currently can't be – linked to Commons in any way, except of course an image.
- Category contains files and categories related to the commune: File:Cozmesti jud Iasi.png, File:Cozmesti judetul Iasi.jpg, Category:Podolenii de Sus, Iași (the latter is a village in this commune).
- But the category also contains files and categories related to the village: 6 files (images of two churches) and Category:Sturdza Castle of Cozmești.
What should be done: The commune and the village should have distinct categories.
Proposed solution: A solution to this problem was already implemented for Category:Communes in Moldova by yours truly, and for Category:Communes in Suceava County by Musichistory2009. Steps:
- New category should be created to represent the commune:
<commune name> commune, <county name>
. It should be categorized in[[Category:Communes in <county name> County]]
. It should contain files and categories related to the commune, as well as categories of villages belonging to said commune. - The contents of existent category
<village name>, <county name>
should be properly re-categorized to include only files and categories regarding the village. Category should be categorized in[[Category:<commune name> commune, <county name>]]
and[[Category:Villages in <county name> County]]
. - The Wikidata item for commune should be updated with the newly created commune category:
<commune name> commune, <county name>
. - To the Wikidata item for village, links to the
<village name>, <county name>
category should be added (they are currently set at the commune's Wikidata item). - Wherever possible, commonscat templates should be corrected or added in Wikipedia articles.
Example featuring the solution: Category:Bosanci commune, Suceava. What happens here:
- Category is linked to the Wikidata item about the commune (d:Q12724565). The Wikidata item about the village (d:Q848206) is linked to its dedicated Commons category: Category:Bosanci, Suceava.
- Category contains files and categories related to the commune: commune's location, commune's CoA, and categories of the commune's villages.
- Files and categories related to the village are placed in the village's dedicated category.
Community input: Please review the reported problem and suggested solution, the working examples (Category:Communes in Moldova, Category:Communes in Suceava County), and let me know whether we should put the effort to apply the solution and, if yes, is there something to add/alter to the solution. Thanks. Gikü (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is something I have in plan for 4 years, I'd be happy if this happens. Relevant previous discussions/work: ro:Discuție_Proiect:Localitățile_din_România#La_Commons and User_talk:Strainubot#Categories --Strainu (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I created the category in 2011 to support categorizing a downstream image geographically; I claim no insight into the political organization of Romania and have no views on the correct outcome. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have no particular problem with the proposal, but the "problem" as stated isn't a problem. A church in a village in a commune is also in the commune. So putting the church directly in the commune category isn't a problem (unless the village subcategory exists). A problem is if we have a category for the county and a category for the village, but a church outside the village goes into the village category with the same name. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree, we should not get too invested with categorizing trivial items like a landscape image; but eventually a commune's location map would find itself in a different category than village's entrance sign if the solution is adopted. Gikü (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Gikü: One tweak I would make would be instead of using the format
<commune name> commune, <county name>
, I would use<commune name> (commune), <county name>
, as 'commune' is strictly disambiguation and so should be in (). Josh (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)- @Joshbaumgartner: Thank you for the input. I feel that brackets in this context are reserved to disambiguate a homonymous villages between communes in the same county (
<village name> (<commune name 1>), <county name>
vs<village name> (<commune name 2>), <county name>
). What I also think, but am not too sure of it, is that 'commune' is not exactly disambiguation here and brackets are thus not needed, just like they are not needed for Category:Alba County. Gikü (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)- @Gikü: In the case of Category:Alba County, the word 'County' is part of the name (hence it is capitalized), and thus as you point out it does not need (). Were it to be 'Alba county' (lower case county), in that the name is really 'Alba' with 'county' added to describe it further, it should be named 'Alba (county)' (if there were other Albas). So really it comes down to that with these communes. Take the example of Category:Cozmești, Iași. The name is simply Cozmești per en and ro labels on Wikidata, so the 'commune' part should be in () as 'Cozmești (commune)'. This is also true for the village (Cozmești (Q2718462)), which should be 'Cozmești (village)'. ', Iasi' can be added if there are other Cozmestis out there to distinguish from. Now, if both Wikidata items and both Enwiki and Rowiki (and the other wikis I saw that have articles for them) are wrong about the names of these places, and indeed the proper names are 'Cozmești Commune' and 'Cozmești Village', then you would be right in that they should be written that way without (). Of course, in that case, the Wikidata entries and articles on the various Wikis should be changed to reflect that reality, and probably need a more concrete reference clarifying the names to make such a change. As for the case where you have two villages with the same name in the same county (different communes), just use '<village>, <commune1>, <county>' and '<village>, <commune2>, <county>' to differentiate them, no need for () at all. Josh (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: For uniformization purposes, would you advocate for applying such a standard to the subcategories of Category:Communes in Moldova and Category:Communes in Suceava County as well? (e.g. Category:Broșteni (Drăgușeni), Suceava -> Category:Broșteni, Drăgușeni, Suceava; Category:Drăgușeni commune, Suceava -> Category:Drăgușeni (commune), Suceava; Category:Drăgușeni, Suceava -> Category:Drăgușeni (village), Suceava.) Gikü (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Gikü: Yes, I would agree with those changes. Josh (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: For uniformization purposes, would you advocate for applying such a standard to the subcategories of Category:Communes in Moldova and Category:Communes in Suceava County as well? (e.g. Category:Broșteni (Drăgușeni), Suceava -> Category:Broșteni, Drăgușeni, Suceava; Category:Drăgușeni commune, Suceava -> Category:Drăgușeni (commune), Suceava; Category:Drăgușeni, Suceava -> Category:Drăgușeni (village), Suceava.) Gikü (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Gikü: In the case of Category:Alba County, the word 'County' is part of the name (hence it is capitalized), and thus as you point out it does not need (). Were it to be 'Alba county' (lower case county), in that the name is really 'Alba' with 'county' added to describe it further, it should be named 'Alba (county)' (if there were other Albas). So really it comes down to that with these communes. Take the example of Category:Cozmești, Iași. The name is simply Cozmești per en and ro labels on Wikidata, so the 'commune' part should be in () as 'Cozmești (commune)'. This is also true for the village (Cozmești (Q2718462)), which should be 'Cozmești (village)'. ', Iasi' can be added if there are other Cozmestis out there to distinguish from. Now, if both Wikidata items and both Enwiki and Rowiki (and the other wikis I saw that have articles for them) are wrong about the names of these places, and indeed the proper names are 'Cozmești Commune' and 'Cozmești Village', then you would be right in that they should be written that way without (). Of course, in that case, the Wikidata entries and articles on the various Wikis should be changed to reflect that reality, and probably need a more concrete reference clarifying the names to make such a change. As for the case where you have two villages with the same name in the same county (different communes), just use '<village>, <commune1>, <county>' and '<village>, <commune2>, <county>' to differentiate them, no need for () at all. Josh (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Thank you for the input. I feel that brackets in this context are reserved to disambiguate a homonymous villages between communes in the same county (
- I have no particular problem with the proposal, but the "problem" as stated isn't a problem. A church in a village in a commune is also in the commune. So putting the church directly in the commune category isn't a problem (unless the village subcategory exists). A problem is if we have a category for the county and a category for the village, but a church outside the village goes into the village category with the same name. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: 's suggestions make sense to me. We might allow more input before applying this to Moldova, though it looks like Gikü has created a lot of that organizational structure. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Is Category:Parquet flooring redundant with Category:Parquetry ? Themightyquill (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:Parquet flooring | Merge into | Category:Parquetry | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Agreed with Themightyquill (talk · contribs). These are one and the same topic so no need for 2 cats. | ||||
Josh (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
- I support the proposed merge. I have just updated the Wikidata item for parquetry to point to the parquetry category here. It's a better match even if we don't change anything here. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- I, too, support the merge. Redirection is good for consistency with cat:laminate flooring
- I'm trying --Move |1= Category:Parquetry|2= discussed proposal to merge 2 cats|3= 2021-01-14|4= Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Parquet flooring|5= -- on Category:Parquet flooring.
- technically: I can remove duplicate cat entries like ((Category:Parquetry)) ((Category:Parquetry))--Westbahnhof (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- If I read this correctly, everyone agrees to merge, but @Westbahnhof: is suggesting keeping Category:Parquet flooring, while Joshbaumgartner and Auntof6 prefer Category:Parquetry. Any further thoughts on which to choose? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly partial to one or the other, just a slight lean to parquetry, but certainly not enough to oppose going the other way on it, so long as they merge. Josh (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I, Westbahnhof, also like to merge (to the proposed Parquetry (or anyhow))! I just think, the Redirection from Parquet flooring to Parquetry, which would remain then like I suppose, is good for consistency with cat:laminate flooring.
- By the way, I would appreciate a distinction between mosaic/ornamen/artistic symmetric kind of work and laminate/ engineered wood/click-Parkett like work, thinking of it, but this is another thing. None of these cats seems to represent one more than the other. --Westbahnhof (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- If I read this correctly, everyone agrees to merge, but @Westbahnhof: is suggesting keeping Category:Parquet flooring, while Joshbaumgartner and Auntof6 prefer Category:Parquetry. Any further thoughts on which to choose? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see that in some cases like this (or better book shelves and, what was the other?) with confusion I tend to believe it is better to make just one cat (even if there are slight differences or differences of used word in different English-speaking countries) but add a header saying This cat contains images about parquetry, bookcases, (?book cases :) and parquet flooring on top, but never make cats with the cat-destroyer word "and". (I answered for more than one CfD). --E4024 (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
merging manually (Commons delinker is down) --Westbahnhof (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC) done. Westbahnhof (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
"Western North America" seems like a strangely arbitrary location, and it's awkward to deal with because it includes parts of (but not all of) the United States and Canada. I propose deleting this category and diffusing it to the more common pattern Category:Steamboats by country and Category:Steamboats of the United States by state. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's tricky, because many of the same boats served both countries. Seattle-Vancouver and Seattle-Victoria were both very busy routes; steamers from Alaska to almost anywhere in the Lower 48 often stopped in Canadian ports along the way (e.g. Prince Rupert, as well as the more obvious ones).
- What I find more troubling is where we draw the line between "steamboat" and "steamship".
- There might well be a better way to sort all of this out, but I'd like to see a concrete proposal and be able to throw some test cases at it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I see how it could get messy to categorize ships that range across both the United States and Canada, or multiple states, in multiple categories. Would it maybe be reasonable to categorize ships by route? e.g.
- It's also worth noting that "Steamboats of X" need not include any steamboat that merely makes a stop in X; I suppose it includes steamboats for which X is a significant or frequent destination?
- The boat/ship distinction exists on a much higher level (e.g. Category:Ships vs. Category:Boats), and is primarily determined by the vessel's size, so I think it should be the same here. It's currently applied differently here - I would confidently say that this image depicts a boat and this image depicts a ship. Category:Steamboats currently says that the distinction is whether the vessel is ocean-going, though. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:Steamships of western North America | Delete | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Category:Steamboats of western North America | Delete | |||
Category:Steamboats by river | Create | |||
"Western" North America is not a defined region so should not be used as a category name. Categorize by flag country (not every country it might visit) in Category:Steamships of country format. To answer Jmabel (talk · contribs) re: boats of multiple countries, if a boat legitimately flew more than one country's flag over its career, it should be listed in each country category, though again, this should only be those countries it actually was flagged in, not every country it 'served'. For steamboats specific to particular rivers, the "Steamboats of the river" categories should be under "Steamboats of country" for each country the river is in and also under Category:Steamboats by river. The distinction between ships and boats is not a concern for this CfD, as BMacZero (talk · contribs) states correctly that is already defined at a higher level (issues with that distinction should be raised in a CfD on Category:Steamboats and Category:Steamships). As for ships that range across multiple states, while one does not technically 'flag' by state, the same principal applies, and so in cases where the official home port is known to be in a particular state, the vessel can be listed under that state, but there is no value to listing it under every state or territory it visits. | ||||
Josh (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
"By river" seems to me to be way off the mark, since most of these operated on the waters of what is known as the Salish Sea more than they operated on rivers. - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Categories should be used to find files, not to hide them in useles and almost empty categories that are hidden in useless and almost empty categories. If I go to Category:2019 film festivals I would like to see the subcategories of all the filmfestivals there are. Yes, if there is an enormous amount of subcategories it could be usefull to make subcategories to divide them between countries. But that is not the case. These subactegories are not helping people to find files, and that is what they were intended for. 2001:1C03:5A02:6900:CC9A:2DE5:1BCC:762 15:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think this applies to all subcategories of Category:Film festivals by year by continent so I've tagged it for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:Film festivals by continent | Delete | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Category:Film festivals by year by continent | Delete | |||
Includes all subs of film festivals by continent. By continent categories are not strictly useless in all cases, but in the case of film festivals, there are not so many of these that simple 'by country' indexing is more than enough to handle. All non-'by continent' cats in this tree are already sufficiently categorized in 'by country' indices, so we can simply delete the whole 'film festivals by continent' index tree. | ||||
Josh (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
The name is confusing. It is easily misuderstood to mean Signatures. This category should be renamed as Category:Autographs (manuscripts). Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Autograph manuscripts is already nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- again, for the umptieth time, see the discussion at Wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat#Autograph and autograph-manuscripts for the explanation on why all three categories make more than common sense. How many more times does it need to be explained that not all autographs are signatures, that not all autographs are manuscripts, that not all signatures are autographs, and that English Wikipedia, as well as French Wikipedia, have an article on autographs, meaning an article on autographs both in the "signature" and the "manuscript" meaning. And that, further, several Wikipedias have a separate article on autographs in the "manuscript" meaning, each of these articles deserving an appropriate grouping via an appropriate Wikidata item – so that having a separate category, also for "signatures" (combining files regarding autograph and non-outgraph signatures), is the normal thing to do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I may have gone off half-cocked here. Before I noticed that Francis Schonken had reverted me (he did not ping me) I had moved several hundred autographs that were merely signatures from Category:Autographs to Category:Signatures. Category:Signatures is a subcat of Category:Autograph signatures, which is in turn a subcat of Category:Autographs, so I see no reason that something that is simply a signature should be in Category:Autographs, but perhaps I am missing something, and I'll stay out of this from here forward. It seems to me, though, that these belong in Category:Signatures, and to have them in a grandparent category is COM:OVERCAT. If that is a misunderstanding, feel free to re-add Category:Autographs, but I do not believe Category:Signatures should be removed.
- For whatever it's worth, I got into this because of a discussion on Wikidata, where someone asked about what appeared to them (and to me) about a mess in terms of linking up the Commons categories in this area to the related Wikipedia articles. Anyway, if others are actually working on this, I think my own view is clear and I don't need to be further involved. If someone needs me to clarify anything I said, etc. feel free to ping me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: not every signature is an autograph signature, consequently I removed the "autograph signatures" cat from the "signatures" cat.
- Sorry I reacted with irritation to the whole situation: I was in the midst of sorting it out when I got several reverts, so I couldn't complete the work (couldn't even correct some obvious errors while they might have been seen as re-reverts).
- Jmabel, might you consider to withdraw your CfD proposal above, which at this time seems to have no obvious benefit? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw it if someone will commit to cleaning up the relevant categories and sorting out what category should be linked where in Wikidata. Tons of things that are just signatures presumably belong somewhere under Category:Signatures or Category:Autographs signatures. When I started this, literally hundreds were directly in Category:Autographs, many of them in no other category at all. Otherwise, this still needs a discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- My plan was entirely to sort it all out unto the deepest details. The leave I took from that plan was entirely temporary, until agreement about the direction of the plan was reached. Yesterday I proposed my cleanout of the Wikidata items (and their connected wikipedia articles and commons categories). See Wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat#Autograph and autograph-manuscripts where I posted the scheme I applied for the Wikidata items (my post of 23:39, 30 November 2019). There was no reaction yet, and I'll wait still a bit to see if there are further comments, and then, if and when it seems OK, implement the commons side of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw it if someone will commit to cleaning up the relevant categories and sorting out what category should be linked where in Wikidata. Tons of things that are just signatures presumably belong somewhere under Category:Signatures or Category:Autographs signatures. When I started this, literally hundreds were directly in Category:Autographs, many of them in no other category at all. Otherwise, this still needs a discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment There is no need for three separate parallel discussions about these categories, so I have closed the conversations at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Autograph manuscripts and Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Autograph signatures and subsumed them into a single discussion here which can continue in one place until resolved. Josh (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Wikidata discussion mentioned above has, in the meanwhile, been archived to Wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2019/11#Autograph and autograph-manuscripts.
- Is there any reason to keep this open any further? Could someone close this? I mean, so that we can get the category content sorted in whatever scheme that is accepted while this stalling does not help anyone? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a reason to keep it open. The mess you have created, both here and on Wikidata, is unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Three years have passed since the last edit here. Is this still an open issue? —howcheng {chat} 22:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)