Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Mercedes automobiles in museums

[edit]

Should be merged with Category:Mercedes-Benz automobiles in museums Zenwort (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Ich sehe, Du schreibst viel auf Deutsch, daher antworte ich auf Deutsch. Ist Dir die Historie von Mercedes-Benz bekannt? Zunächst gab es das Unternehmen de:Benz & Cie. in Mannheim mit der Marke Benz sowie das Unternehmen de:Daimler-Motoren-Gesellschaft in Cannstadt / Stuttgart mit der anfänglichen Marke Daimler und dann Mercedes. Beide stellten unabhängig voneinander von 1886 bis 1926 Kraftfahrzeuge her. 1926 kam es zur Fusion. Das neue Unternehmen hieß de:Daimler-Benz mit dem Markennamen Mercedes-Benz. Somit kann man Mercedes und Mercedes-Benz nicht durcheinandermischen. --Buch-t (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Systems in Germany

[edit]

Ambigious. Redundant. To be deleted. Besides Germany, also category:Systems in Poland, category:Systems in Ukraine exist Estopedist1 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not redundant. 4 categories in Category:Systems in Germany, 6 categories Category:Systems in Poland, 4 categories in Category:Systems in Ukraine. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 19:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the numbers you mentioned: Each categorization starts once from zero. Now there are a few entries. Commons is certainly not yet perfect and not fully categorized.
What it's meant to include: A system is a set of entities, real or abstract, comprising a whole where each component interacts with or is related to at least one other component and they all serve a common objective. For the purpose of organizing articles into categories, there are four major type of system which can reasonably be expected to contain every type of system under its category tree: Physical systems, Biological systems, Social systems, and Conceptual systems.
So possible entries as "... systems by country", like
Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 19:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cast members

[edit]
see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:The Polar Express cast for subsumed discussion

i'm nominating this cat tree now before it becomes too big to handle. i believe it's a bad idea to put actors into "XYZ cast members", because for example for prolific actors who have appeared in 100+ movies (not that difficult actually), this would put them into hundreds of cats, which is very difficult to manage.

the better scheme of categorisation is: John Doe -> (John Doe filmography) -> films starring John Doe / films directed by John Doe / films produced by John Doe... RZuo (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC) (only if any categorisation of this kind is even needed.)--RZuo (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first part but not the second. The whole point of the categorization scheme is to categorize files currently stored in the Commons, not people or movies. It is not to try and map out every film an actor has been in. That is what Wikidata statements and Wikipedia lists are good at. If we have a photo of John Doe as a cast member in Awesome Movie, then the file belongs in both categories. If we have a number of them, we can create Category:John Doe in Awesome Movie to categorize them and that category can be under both actor and movie. The effort to put every person's main category under a category for of every movie they were ever associated with is ridiculous and leads to massive and clumsy parent category lists for each person on their main category. However, I feel the same is true for the reverse, which is why I disagree with your second comment. I feel trying to put the movie's main category under the category of each person associated with the movie will be just as unwieldy (scan the credits of a movie...do we really want every line of those credits turned into a parent category for each movie?)
Generally speaking, using categories and categorization to actually contain verifiable information about a topic is a problem, as it isn't structured to do so properly. Categorization links are not cited, and so can not be verified. Wikidata does a much better job of this, allowing intricate webs of relations between entities (e.g. actors to movies, etc.) without a problem with large datasets and with the ability to connect references for validation along with those statements. Categories also make for a bad presentation as they are difficult to order and cannot be sorted or tabularized for readability, and the completeness of such a list cannot be marked. Wikipedia lists do a much better job of presenting a filmography or credit roll in a way that allows for the list to be ordered, sorted, cited, and checked for completion in a readable presentation. Josh (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i agree. it's not commons cat tree's purpose to handle wikidata's job. even though there's a relation between an actor and a movie, it's not for commons to document this relation.
i think, a movie should only be categorised by its country of production, year, genre, language.--RZuo (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all cast members categories. Let's focus on what this discussion is. If people want to have a different categorization, that can be done elsewhere. I don't think this is a good way to have this discussion unless put this notice on each subcategory and you ping everyone who created one of those pages. Even though we are talking about more than 200 subcategories, it would at least get a lot more eyes to this discussion and avoid the repeated arguments about whether this discussion or that discussion was properly done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ricky81682 and RZuo: What about pictures of the cast (such as group photographs for a given set)? I completely agree that individual person categories should not be listed under each film they played a role in, as that is a relationship best maintained elsewhere, but pictures of people actually during their participation as a cast member are fine. For example, I would remove most all the categories under Category:Harry Potter cast, but the files are appropriate to be retained as they are particular to their participation in that cast. Josh (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    a new scheme/cat tree is probably needed for all "behind the scenes"/"making of" kind of files about a movie, if there isnt an existing scheme. "Category:Film production/Production of <film title>" maybe?
    another cat tree is probably needed for promotion of a movie e.g. premieres, press conferences. "Category:Promotion of <film/tv series title>"?
    i think most photos/videos of the crew (cast is only a subset (all the actors) of the entire crew) would fall under either of these two cat trees.
    some things would still be left out by these two trees. for example the cast of Friends (TV Series) "reunited" from time to time long after the show was over. those photos/videos would not be "behind the scenes" nor promotion. :/ RZuo (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the gain from keeping pictures of the cast that way. If we have that, we can put it under the film or film series but images like File:Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson & Rupert Grint colour.jpg are just as fine split under the images of the three actors (oddly enough we only have a Emma Watson category) and it is under Category:Premiere of Deathly Hallows - Part 2 in London which is what I expect. The few instances would likely be on the set or at a premiere which can be its own category so that the location and date are better categorized and it's not like the vast majority of these categories are anything other than just categories that are collecting categories of people. In theory, it could be useful but in reality we just have lots of time spent on categorizing actors by their roles which consume the categories for each actor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:The Polar Express cast has been subsumed into this discussion as it is a sub-set of the broader cast members discussion. Josh (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. I agree that cast categories (and possibly also "Films starring" categories) are problematic. Similarly, it's common to simply put actors in the main category, such as in Category:Friends (1994 TV series).

However, look at the Wikidata infobox in that category; it transcludes a collapsed lists of actors. If such lists were to be rendered as wikilinks, that would make it a little easier to navigate between media of interrelated topics, which I believe was the intention behind both cast categories and actor categories added to production categories.

Sinigh (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... which means I agree that Wikidata should be used rather than categories, but that Commons can still benefit from it. Sinigh (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jelly

[edit]

this title should be clarified. jelly also commonly refers to the gelatin snack. (as a cantonese we only call the gelatin snack jelly. all fruit preserves are called jam. i didnt know it could also refer to fruit jam until today.) RZuo (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, made clear by Category:Jellies in Peru, Category:Jellies in the Philippines and Category:Layered jellies. Maybe disambiguate as Category:Jelly (spread)? And the dessert jellies could be renamed "Gelatin desserts in X" and Category:Layered gelatin desserts ? -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make this a disambiguation category. @RZuo: , in case you're interested, in some places the difference between jelly and jam is that jam has fruit pieces in it and jelly does not. They are both under the umbrella of fruit preserves or preserved fruit. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Support disambiguation page, as this term can have different and contradictory meanings, both casual and perhaps legal, in different regions. Josh (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Observation in Germany

[edit]

"Observation in" is an unique country category. Subcategories to be re-categorized, and the category in question to be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Estopedist1: I presume by 'unique country category' you mean that it is the only "observation in country" category that currently exists, and you do not mean that observation is unique to Germany, which would make the 'in Germany' category inherently redundant to the main category, is this correct? Josh (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Category:Observation is a current main category for the activity of observing. Presumably this is an activity that can take place in Germany so thus I see no fundamental issue with existence of the category Category:Observation in Germany. The fact that no other "Observation in country" categories have yet been created is not cause for this one's deletion. Once others are likewise created, they can be gathered under Category:Observation by country or some such. Until then, it appears fine as is. Josh (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep arguments as User:Joshbaumgartner -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 14:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment, I'm not convinced by Josh's argument even though I share it went it comes to categories with a fairly clear scope such as objects.

For "observation", the situation is comparable to the one found at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/07/Category:Systems_in_Germany. One refers to overly broad definition nowhere else to be found on Commons that could essentially encompass anything that would also be in Category:Germany directly. It may not matter, but it can lead to people just recategorize files into "by country" subcategories at Category:Observation instead of seeking to improve it by subtopic.

An additional risk is that subcategories at Category:Observation in Germany end up being disconnected from the main ones at Category:Observation. This may seem trivial to avoid, but given the vagueness of "observation" is probably even more likely to happen given that Category:Transport buildings ended up being a road in Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/07/Category:Transport_buildings_in_Zaberfeld without people noticing. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Enhancing999: Where would you put the contents of Category:Observation in Germany if we were to delete it? Josh (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if there is a need. All subcategories should have other parent categories. We do have categories by name, so "categories named after observation" wouldn't be inconsistent, but not really needed either. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician urban foods

[edit]

What's the purpose of this category? What's urban food? The same goes for Category:Galician rural foods -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician architecture (Central Europe)

[edit]

Rename to Category:Architecture of Galicia (Central Europe)? -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: that would be in line with the practice of not using demonyms. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Galicia (Austria)

[edit]

Upmerge to Category:History of Galicia (Central Europe) or to Category:Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. Also applies to Category:Industry in Galicia (Austria). -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belts by country

[edit]

As far as I can tell, every other clothing by country category uses "of" or "in" but belts uses "from". Any reason for that? -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prepositions in country categories are often difficult to choose. Yes, it should be unified with other cloth category. Thank you for suggestion. I would prefer preposition "of". Can you change all the files ?
--Lucyin (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Categories using "Item from country" should be specific items which originated in the country (i.e. manufactured or developed there). "Item of country" simply indicates a relationship of any sort between the item and country (origin, location, ownership, etc.). Josh (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment While it is laudable to seek consistency across category trees, it is far more important for the category name to fit the contents of the category correctly. Josh (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "of" is best because it's intentionally ambiguous to cover both "in" and "from". People can subdivide if they want to be very specific, but what do you do with a "Japanese" karate belt made in Bangladesh but photographed in France? =) -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Macun

[edit]

Is Category:Macun redundant with Category:Macun (toffee)? -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of the moment of writing, the images in the former category seem to be about a type of candied fruit, while the latter is more of a candy (mostly sugar). --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda: Does en:Mesir macunu figure in here? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Category:Mesir Macunu is classified in Wikidata as subtype of the toffee version. If it were up to me, I would probably reorganise this as:
--HyperGaruda (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda: That works for me. -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1953 in Telangana

[edit]

Telangana did not exist as a separate state until en:Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. Should we continue the history like we do with Category:Telangana in the 18th century or merge this into Andhra Pradesh where it was at this time? Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana was not part of Andhra Pradesh till 1956 and was part of the Hyderabad State instead. So it makes sense for pre-1956 Telangana to have a separate category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: Hyderabad State became a part of India in 1950. There is no 1956 in Hyderabad State category. It is either in Andhra Pradesh or separate but it doesn't belong in the name of a princely state that did not exist at that time. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I read the article article at English instead of the nonsense that was posted there. @Sbb1413 you are linking to the wrong one. In 1953, Telangana didn't exist nor did Andhra Pradesh. Both were in Category:Hyderabad State (1948–1956). As such, suggest moving Category:1953 in Hyderabad, India (that is all we are arguing about) to Category:1953 in Hyderabad State to reflect what was in existence then rather than keep Hyderabad city in Andra Pradesh (because it was there from 1956-2014) and Telangana (because of post-2014). Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hyderabad city still had its separate existence as the capital of Hyderabad State in 1953. So, instead of renaming the city category, we should include it into the Hyderabad State category, where we may add old images of Hyderabad State outside Hyderabad city. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kailashnath Mahadev Statue

[edit]

I hate to be a spoilsport, but there is no freedom of panorama in Nepal. Shouldn't this cat be cleaned out? Judithcomm (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pictures of little relevance to the main category

[edit]

Categories make it easy to find images of a particular place or topic on Commons. This category, which I have nominated for deletion, is unnecessary. Evaluation of whether the picture is related to a subject is a subjective opinion. These are opinions that differ from person to person. The category is inappropriate and needs to be deleted. Kadı Message 11:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent days reorganizing the mess I found when adding pictures to the Side category. Many wrong attributions, many wrong names, and pictures like the ones that I put in this category for lack of a better one. Pictures that might have been taken anywhere and in my opinion are not what people look for if they want to find images of Side. Unidentified parts of roads, shrubbery, a hedgehog, a sea view with nothing to see, a sundown. Having spent about a week in Side town I managed to identify many pictures, that I added to specific categories, many of which I created. If you think people will enjoy seeing the pictures I put in this one, be my guest and contribute to the mess I find on many categories. I am from Amsterdam, people ride many bikes here, and it seems every tourist needs to take at least some picture of a bike, preferably parked on a bridge. But luckily they are in a sub-sub-category (which has many sub-categories itself), and not in the main category. I claim that people too easily put pictures in main categories, and that this makes it increasingly difficult to find a specific thing. I use the Commons and Wikipedia on a daily basis, and find it flooded with useless pictures. But as you state “I am fighting with vandalism on Turkish Wikipedia” (leave that “with” out) you must do what you want. Only don’t call me a vandal, with now well over 36000 pictures (many of Turkey) and thousands of categories under my belt. Oh, it may be clear I suggest the category remains, and people should create more like it. Dosseman (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Dosseman. I am not defining you as a vandal. I've explained above, please read it again. Best, Kadı Message 15:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had and have read it, but still disagree with deletion. I was following this suggestion on the Side site: "This is a main category requiring frequent diffusion and maybe maintenance. As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into appropriate subcategories." So the struggle now is about the appropriateness of this category. I will wait and see. Dosseman (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
im totally support dosseman. Modern primat (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just wait for the verdict as I ran out of steam. Kadi, by the way, is "judge" in Turkish and many languages, being Arabic. If convicted I may appeal to a higher court. I wonder if Kadi took a look at the content of my collection and compared it with any of the sub-categories I created. Dosseman (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sé si es ésta o la que sigue la categoría mas tonta de Commons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.203.20.182 (talk • contribs)

@Dosseman and Kadı: I understand the sentiment here, and yes "side" would attract a lot of spurious categorization, especially by users of the upload script. However, this solution does not really work in Commons. I am not sure why this category would make it any easier to maintain the main category. If an image does not belong in a category, it should simply be removed from that category (this can be quickly done) and if it doesn't appear to have other more relevant categories assigned, either find a better category for it, or simply add {{Check categories}} to it. This will put it into a proper maintenance pipeline automatically, where other editors can categorize them as their expertise permits. On the other hand, if the images are actually of Side but just need to be better sorted into sub-categories, they should remain at the main category level until so sorted. Thus, this category should be deleted, the images in it removed from it and placed in Category:Media needing category review by using {{Check categories}}. Josh (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per user:Joshbaumgartner--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete same opinion, and spotted another subjective category.--Tün (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bet there are more categories like these. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pictures of little relevance to the town

[edit]

Categories make it easy to find images of a particular place or topic on Commons. This category, which I have nominated for deletion, is unnecessary. Evaluation of whether the picture is related to a subject is a subjective opinion. These are opinions that differ from person to person. The category is inappropriate and needs to be deleted. Kadı Message 11:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This cat was created only recently with a specific rationale: "People often dump pictures they happened to take in a town in its category without showing anything about town, thus drawing attention away from relevant pictures. The Sinop ones are here." While I fully acknowledge the underlying problem, IMO such a cat doesn't sense. We might consider creating a template, that could be used to tag such kind of images (and eventually also put them on a path to deletion). --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Túrelio. I just wrote my opinion at the other deletion suggestion (Pictures_of_little_relevance_to_the_main_category). I have been hoping there would be a template like the one you describe. I think you are aware I work in good faith, but am sometimes blown away by the amount of senseless pictures people see as their contribution to what should indeed be a place where one can see what a town, a region is really like, instead of their selfies and other rubbish. "Easy to find pictures", my foot. Dosseman (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio and Dosseman: If a file is out of scope (i.e. it adds no value to the project), it should be deleted, not buried. So long as it remains part of the project, it should be properly sorted in appropriate categories. As for a template to use, it already exists and has a corresponding maintenance category pipeline it puts the file into. It is {{Check categories}}. This should be used instead of this category. Josh (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems weird. The picture on the right: File:Sinop-evening.JPG by User:MichaelSchoenitzer. If it's not Sinop, it shouldn't named "Sinop". If it is Sinop, it's relevant to the category Category:Sinop (Turkey). I don't think labeling it "senseless" or "rubbish" is appropriate. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: This picture is a problem. It absolutely is appropriate to be under Category:Sinop (Turkey), and it should not be removed from the topic category to a maintenance category. If it needs to be sorted into a subcategory then do so, but dumping into a burial ground is not appropriate. Josh (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete and place images back in Category:Sinop (Turkey). Add {{Check categories}} to them so they can be reviewed and their categorization improved or if they are out of scope, they can be deleted. Josh (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per user:Joshbaumgartner--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, this can be closed. Kadı Message 18:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Also this category should be deleted, created by the same user. Why closing discussions in commons take months, even years?--Tün (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Proszę o skasowanie całej kategorii. Żaden z obrazów znajdujących się w tym muzeum nie jest obrazem orygjnalnym (być może poza jednym obrazem van Gogha, ale co do tego też są wątpliwości). Każdy z opisów jest fałszywy i wprowadza w błąd. Kriis bis (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paddle wheels

[edit]

"Category:Paddle wheels" (currently restricted to wheels installed on ships and serving propulsion in tangential direction) is inconsistent with the description at Paddle_wheel that includes other types of wheels, most notably waterwheels. How can this get fixed? Is there a hypernym that covers both paddle wheels of ships and waterwheels? Maybe "blade wheel", "bladed wheel"? Taylor 49 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So when did Wikipedia become the definition of truth for Commons? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer, essentially equivalent to "let's give a f**k into wikipedia" is less helpful for resolving this inconsistency. It does not contain any usable suggestion. Either commons or wikipedia can be edited. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49 and Andy Dingley: Commons categories have their own policies and guidelines seperate and distinct from English (or any other) Wikipedia. Simply citing Wikipedia as a reason to conform Commons categories is not in and of itself enough to warrant a change. That said, if there are good reasons behind Wikipedia's decision, they may well also inform the Commons decision process, but one still needs to show how a proposal is specifically good and appropriate for Commons.

If "paddle wheels" includes both those used for ship propulsion as well as water wheels, the the current category should be renamed something along the lines of Category:Ship propulsion paddle wheels and both it and Category:Water wheels should become children of a new Category:Paddle wheels that covers both. Josh (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists

[edit]

This category seems to be being used as a dumb for such a varied and ambiguous set of concepts that it's essentially worthless. For instance it combines images of painters, ukulele players, and models into the same category. Also the note on the top says that no images should be directly in the category, but that's clearly not being followed. So I'd like to either turn it into a disambiguation page that contains more specific and clearly artist related categories like Category:Painters and Category:Photographers, or someone can suggest a workable alternative that fixes the issues. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd support making this a disambiguation page. It could include:
  • Performance artists
  • Performing artists
  • Visual artists
The subcats of Category:Artists by medium might need to be either distributed among these or included on the dab page. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I am not sure why this category is worthless. Yes, it is a very broad topic and media should be sorted into sub-categories, but turning it into a dab is not the right solution IMHO. We have tons of topical categories that cover a wide variety of sub-categories and they all end up with files in them that really are best sorted into subs, but essentially deleting the top-level cat (turning it into a dab) is a bad idea as this is often the starting point for a files journey to ever more specific categorization over time as users with greater expertise are able to more precisely identify the content. I do however  Support removing the no-files tag on this one as it isn't really correct and is at best just an attempt to discourage people from putting files here when as I explained, their is a purpose for that and nothing wrong with it. Josh (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is often the starting point for a files journey to ever more specific categorization over time @Joshbaumgartner: Sure, that's the case in general. The fact there's still over 3,000 images in this category a year later shows it's not the case in this specific instance though. Per Commons:Categories "A category is a special page which is intended to group related pages and media. In practice, it implies that you'll associate a single subject with a given category. The category name should be enough to guess the subject." Two things about that aren't being followed here 1. "artists" aren't a "single subject" 2. "artists" aren't related to each other because the term is extremely broad to the point of including essentially anyone who is skilled at an occupation. So what's your answer to those problems? Just allowing people to continuing adding files to the category when those files ultimately aren't going to be organized into sub categories clearly isn't a solution. Turning it a DAB would be one though. Otherwise what's your alternative fix besides the status quo? And no, handwaving about why things are often done a certain way isn't one. I didn't start this to discuss general practices that aren't relevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your answer to those problems? Just allowing people to continuing adding files to the category when those files ultimately aren't going to be organized into sub categories clearly isn't a solution. Turning it a DAB would be one though. Otherwise what's your alternative fix besides the status quo?

@Adamant1: Another solution might be to tag Category:Artists as a {{CatCat}} and move all the files to Category:Unidentified artists, which would then be sorted as writers, performing artists, and visual artists. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
art comes in a wide range of forms, so there is also a large variety of artists. i dont see what needs to be fixed. RZuo (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1, Auntof6, Joshbaumgartner, and RoyZuo:  Keep – We have reached a consensus at Category talk:Art that the category Category:The arts encompasses the following academic disciplines: Category:Literature, Category:Performing arts, and Category:Visual arts. So, Category:Artists should naturally follow the suit and include Category:Writers, Category:Performing artists, and Category:Visual artists. Yes, Category:Artists is a broad term, and Category:Football is also a broad term internationally. But broadness is not an excuse to disambiguation. In Wikipedia, we have a concept of broad-concept articles that cover broad or abstract topics by discerning unambiguous meanings from the relationship between the associated topics. We can do the same for categories and create "broad-concept categories", and Category:Football is a role model of such categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: There was a consensus on the Village Pump a few months ago to get rid of Category:celebrities because it's to broad and just gets used as a dump for actors, politicians, and anyone else who is even slightly notable. I'd support that. That's not even getting into the more general question of what makes someone an artist to begin with either. Bakers, artists. architects, artists. Circus performers, artists. Video game producers, artists Etc. Etc. Essentially any semi-creative occupation is "artistic." So it's a completely meaningless way to categorize images. At least at this level. Turning it into a dabpage while confining it to specific occupations that are clearly artistic would be a solution though. But there's absolutely no reason what-so-ever that an image of a circus clown and photographer should be in the same category just because people informally refer to both of them as "artists." --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus on the Village Pump a few months ago to get rid of Category:celebrities because it's to broad and just gets used as a dump for actors, politicians, and anyone else who is even slightly notable.

@Adamant1: Category:Celebrities is still a valid category, but individuals are not allowed to be categorized here unless "they do not fit into any other occupational category." The category description makes it clear.

There is also agreement that Category:History should be turned into dabpage for similar reasons.

The CFD Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:History is still open, and though I'm also involved in that discussion, most users seem to want to modify the scope of the category instead of converting into a dab page or something. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 96#Category:History is about directly putting thousands of images under Category:History, which should really be put under specific subcats.

That's not even getting into the more general question of what makes someone an artist to begin with either. Bakers, artists. architects, artists. Circus performers, artists. Video game producers, artists Etc. Etc. Essentially any semi-creative occupation is "artistic." So it's a completely meaningless way to categorize images. At least at this level.

Yes, Category:Artists can cover many semi-creative occupations, and Category:The arts also covers many semi-creative disciplines. There are mainly three types of artists: writers, performing artists, and visual artists. Bakers, architects and video game producers are "visual artists", while circus performers are "performing artists". So, there's nothing wrong that the term "artists" covers so many different subtopics. If you're worried on whether all people can be artists, let me tell you that there are non-arts occupations that won't fall under the term "artists", like scientists, engineers, programmers and sportspeople, because none of these occupations will ever fall under any of the three types of artists.
TL;DR: The term "artists" is broad, but is restricted to certain types, and occupations can come under "artists" if they can come under any of those types of artists. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm also an "amateur visual artist" because I take photos and draw vector maps. :) Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Celebrities is still a valid category @Sbb1413: At least going by the latest discussion everyone agreed that the category is useless and should be deleted. Maybe there's other discussions about it that I'm not aware of though.
The CFD Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:History is still open Your correct about that. I actually modified my comment to not say it was going to be turned into a dabpage before you posted the one I'm replying to. So that's on me, but I still think it's an example of where a category for an extremely broad concept doesn't work on here. At least not without doing something extra to make sure it's not turned into a dump for random, unrelated images. One possibility is to turn this into a catcat like Category:History though.
Yes, Category:Artists can cover many semi-creative occupations Generally sure, it shouldn't in this case though because what qualifies as "semi-creative" is way to subjective. Like you say sportspeople aren't artists, but ice skating is very artistic. Whereas programmers are essentially writers, who you say are a type of artist. So....
There are mainly three types of artists: writers, performing artists, and visual artists. Cool, then I'd support turning this into a dabpage for those three categories. I don't really see any reason why not. Seriously, what would be the actual draw back to turning this into a dabpage? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Proszę o skasowanie całej kategorii. Żaden z obrazów znajdujących się w tym muzeum nie jest obrazem orygjnalnym (być może poza jednym obrazem van Gogha, ale co do tego też są wątpliwości). Każdy z opisów jest fałszywy i wprowadza w błąd. Kriis bis (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public Square

[edit]

Disambiguation is required to distinguish the square in New York with the identical name A1Cafel (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it accordingly to Category:Public Square (Cleveland), similarly, the following subcategories:

It will take a couple of days till the bot completes the moves and the links are adjusted. Once done, Category:Public Square can be redirected to Category:Urban squares. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving those categories was premature. None of those should've moved before an admin closed this discussion, and Category:55 Public Square and Category:200 Public Square shouldn't have been moved at all. They're not ambiguous names, and should be moved back. - Eureka Lott 22:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: I have created a DAB page. If that's fine than I think there is no issues regarding the category. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel: Thanks, I think we can close the discussion now unless Eureka Lott think it should stay open due to saying the moves should have been done after closing the discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be inconsistent to not include the city in building categories that are mere addresses, even if English Wikipedia doesn't. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support disambiguation of the specific addresses, i.e. 55 Public Square (Cleveland). These disambigs are not essential ("55 Public Square" is unambiguous within our own namespace), but they are clearer to readers, especially those unfamiliar. As someone working a lot on geographical categorization (although not in Ohio) clarity at this level is a great help to me. If we have two choices, neither has a strong reason to enforce it but one is slightly more helpful, then I'm going to prefer the helpful one. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the meantime an administrator deleted Category:55 Public Square and Category:200 Public Square as "bad names". A1Cafel ignored it and moved the categories back there. Also, they were blocked from Commons as they were evading some sort of banned over by requesting deletion. Let's clean this up. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud, User:Enhancing999, will you please quit moving categories out of process? You knew there was disagreement about moving these categories, and now you've moved them to inappropriate titles for a second time. This isn't how consensus works. - Eureka Lott 18:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nautical charts, sea routes

[edit]

So I stumbled across this old category, which contained a wild mixture of stuff and seemed to be created when the guidelines were pretty fresh. It's basically a collection of two comma-separated tags, and I suggest deleting it.

I moved stuff to Category:Maps of sea routes and to circumnavigation maps as well as the Category:Details of nautical charts. No idea about the rest at the moment. D'accord? Best Enyavar (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Goleta Ancud

[edit]

Todas las fotos en este contenedor son de la "réplica" de la nave. Por eso se debe renombrar agregando "(replica)" a su nombre y después se debe hacer una subcategoria de la actual categoria. Ojo con la otra subcategoria... 186.173.207.199 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. Son fotos de diferentes réplicas: la de Ancud, la de Punta Arenas, quizás la de Quinched (no he revisado todas las imágenes). Pero no veo el problema, la categoría no dice que se trate de la goleta original, es una categoría de Commons para reunir cualquier archivo multimedia de un tema denominado "Goleta Ancud". Por ejemplo, también hay una pintura y si alguien subiera el diario de guerra, debería estar aquí. Saludos. Lin linao ¿dime? 17:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Independence Day (United States) outside the United States

[edit]

Probably duplicate with Category:Independence Day (United States) by country, which one should we used? A1Cafel (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This is a different flavor of 'other' category, which is unnecessary. Images should be sorted by the country they are in, not the countries they are not in. Josh (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree, but in this case the category under discussion is a subcategory of Category:American culture abroad, where the 'other'/'outside' part is in fact very relevant. In that context it's not directly interchangeable with Category:Independence Day (United States) by country, especially since that would create orphan files (from Category:Independence Day (United States) outside the United States). A name change may be in order, however. Kreuz und quer (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PBB Kids

[edit]

Please don't use unnecessary category. I'm not a sock and even I never creating out of scope images, but I creating educational images. Heraldrist (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Campus centers

[edit]

Appears to be just another name for Category:Student activity centers. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're proposing creating one giant category with a name that you're not specifying that will then require a {{CatDiffuse}}? And you're going to require that categorizers know that "Campus center", "Student activity center", "Student union", etc., etc., etc. are all synonyms? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
category:Campus centers has very few entries, whereas category:Student activity centers is already diffused, so I'd prefer to see the campus centers one merged into the student activity centers one. If a categorizer doesn't know that the terms are synonyms, that's what {{Category redirect}} is for. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you merge when you could just make Category:Campus centers a subcategory of Category:Student activity centers, just like Category:Student unions is? How does merging a 12-subcategory category into an 8-subcategory category help anybody, especially when the next natural thing to do would be to sort out all of those subcategories into Category:Campus centers, Category:Student unions, etc.? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge & diffuse. This is a distinction of name that involves no difference in function. - Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kolianwali

[edit]

Subject is dead, and not notable. Only 2 photos exist on Commons, one of which is a cropped version of the original. Category superfluous. Recommend deletion. MxYamato (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MxYamato What is the subject you are thinking about? This looks like a surname category for both Category:Dyal Singh Kolianwali and Category:Pardeep Singh Kollianwali. The older is dead and the remaining stuff needs cleanup. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Castello di Pentefur (Savoca)

[edit]

c'é una datazione erronea in wikiwand per il ritorno in possesso del Castello all'Archimandrato del S. Salvatore di Messina in Lingua Phari. Nel sito di Wikiwand si indica il 1386 come data di restituzione, mentre documenti del registro degli atti della Cancelleria del Regno di Sicilia dal 1282 al 1390, pubblicati da A. Marrone, il documento di restituzione risale al 28.09.1367. Gli atti della Cancelleria del Regno di Sicilia dal 1282 al 1390, sono pubblicati in rete, all'indirizzo https://www.storiamediterranea.it/portfolio/repertorio-degli-atti-della-cancelleria-del-regno-di-sicilia-1282-1390/?mode=grid. Il documento cui faccio riferimento é a p. 453.

M. Teresa Campisi Docente di Restauro architettonico, presso l'Università Kore di Enna 2001:B07:6467:5827:C40C:FB12:B9CC:DB3F 18:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palacio de Comunicaciones

[edit]

Proposed rename to Category:Palacio de Cibeles. This palace has been renamed since 2011, but User:Discasto expressed concern on this rename in 2017, so I think a discussion is still necessary A1Cafel (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @RJFF: as the initial proposer of the move. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belleville-en-Beaujolais

[edit]

How necessary is it to distinguish "Bellevelle (Rhône)" and "Belleville-en-Beaujolais" and the corresponding sub-categories? Everything here is extremely nested into very tiny subsubcategories, and it's difficult to find the correct ones. For example, these three images are currently childs of four categories (vehicles of B/Rhô, vehicles of B-e-B, Buses of B/Rhô and Buses of B-e-B) when there is only need for two, namely the B-e-B categories. Enyavar (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athens, Georgia

[edit]

This category matches a category that contains it. Athens is a consolidated city-county and thus is the same as Athens-Clarke County. The categories Athens, Georgia and Clarke County, Georgia should be merged. Ivangiesen (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Athens is the urban centre of this. Is there any rural periphery to this that would generally be regarded as Athens-Clarke, but not commonly referred to as Athens? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From en:w:Athens, Georgia: "... the consolidated city-county (all of Clarke County except Winterville and a portion of Bogart)..." This suggests Clarke County includes not only Athens, but also Winterville and Bogart, yet the latter two are not regarded as part of Athens. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda The county has become Athens-Clarke County. When you say "not only Athens" that there is a difference between Athens and Athens-Clarke County, which there is not, because they are one and the same. See here for clarification from the county government of the issue. Bogart resides partially in Athens-Clarke County and Oglethorpe. The consolidated city-county is fairly rare, so I understand the apprehension to this kind of change. See also for more clarification: Link here. And by the way, earlier in the article that you referred to, en:w:Athens, Georgia, it says "referred to jointly as Athens-Clarke County." Governing wise Athens-Clarke County wholly contains Winterville (which has its own city council and resources). This resource refers to Clarke County as Athens-Clarke County. (see here) and the Georgia Department of Community Affairs refers to the county as Athens-Clarke County (here.)
Although I also see why there could be some confusion because, while all local and Georgia state government related resources refer to the county and everything inside the county as Athens-Clarke County, the census (the two websites I found for census come from data.census.gov and census.gov) (see here) refers to Athens-Clarke County and Clarke County as the slightly different entities for population counting purposes. However, the website I was looking through (census.gov) doesn't even offer the option to search Winterville or Bogart (though I do acknowledge that may be a deficiency in the search query algorithm, you can search up Winterville and Bogart in data.census.gov).
To finish off my point, despite the existence of a slightly (and I argue outdated) naming and differentiation convention of the census for the county and the contained cities, it makes the most practical sense to organize the wiki commons category around the naming and classification conventions of the local peoples and the local and state governments. Ivangiesen (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Thanks to both of you for y'alls quick replies. I am from and live in Athens, Georgia. It's the smallest county in Georgia and everyone thinks about it the same, Athens is Athens-Clarke County. We use it to say the same thing. The consolidation happend roughly 20+ years, so for me, they have always been the same. --Ivangiesen (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Quick web search says the city and county were consolidated in 1991. We might have have historic media that would be in the county but not the city. That could seem to me a point against merging. Have you noticed any such media? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I think any such media that refers to Clarke County is scant compared to media that explicitly refers to Athens pre-1991, however I’ll do some digging. I mean just speaking about the Clarke County, at minimum there should be a redirect or a name change for that category, as it has been renamed Athens-Clarke County. —Ivangiesen (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, based on some digging, there are some (I couldn't find more than a handful) photos of Clarke County out there. How many constitutes enough? And more importantly, let's say I take a picture it what pre-1991 would be considered Clarke County. Would I put it in the Athens or the Clarke County category? @Infrogmation IanVG (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


If a move is suggested, then which would the eventual target be? (or a new name). I assume that all existing names would either stay unchanged, or would redirect to this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New target would be Category:Athens-Clarke County. I found a state government website (https://www.dca.ga.gov/sites/default/files/list-web-c_cities_by_county_4-11-22.pdf) that might help clear this up. —Ivangiesen (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Athens–Clarke County ? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Andy Dingley I would think that Category:Athens-Clarke County makes the most sense. Ivangiesen (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the legal name, but I think most people would think of it as simply Athens. The entries in Category:Consolidated city-counties show city-type names, not county-type names. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2002/07/Category:Stoa 169

Category:Wumu (surname)

[edit]

The family name of "Jing Wumu" is "Jing" (井), not "Wumu". I tried to move the category to Category:Jing (surname), but the category already exists. However, Category:Jing (surname) corresponds to a different Chinese family name (敬), which has the same transliteration "Jing" as 井. So I'm not sure what to do with it. Stevenliuyi (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States

[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a clear distinction between this category and Category:Immigrants to the United States from China which is noticeably larger. Merge this into that. GRuban (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals in the Bible

[edit]

What's the difference between Category:Animals in the Bible and Category:Biblical animals ? -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shake It Up

[edit]

Unclear scope of category; would probably be useful as a dismbiguation page but currently Category:Shake It Up (Disney), which is a member of this category, is the only entity to be disambiguated on Commons. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Odia Wikisource Third Anniversary

[edit]

should be deleted as duplicate exists at Category:Odia Wikisource 3 Photos. Psubhashish (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Folkwang University of the Arts

[edit]

Scheint sich ebenfalls auf Folkwang Universität der Künste zu beziehen, nur auf Englisch. Frage ist welche Bezeichnung ist offiziell? Hiddenhauser (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shower penis

[edit]

Is this a legitimate category? see also Category:Grower penis Mjrmtg (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib)

[edit]

Unless I'm missing some distinction, this category looks like it is the same as the parent Category:Harmandir Sahib but with a different name. I suggest upmerging these images upward so people can better see how many images need diffusion. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be for the main building and the parent category for the entire site. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That could make sense if the main category wasn't also in Category:Buildings in Amritsar. Also, Category:Harmandir Sahib illuminated and Category:Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) illuminated look similar. Maybe a better name is needed then. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abbatiale de Dol-de-Bretagne

[edit]

titre erroné

[edit]

Cette "chapelle" n'a pas la qualité d'église abbatiale. Elle fait suite à l'église priorale, du prieuré dit de l’Abbaye-sous-Dol, fondé en 1068 par Jean de Dol-Combour ; l'archevêque Even lui conféra en outre la qualité d'église pour la paroisse dite de l’Abbaye. La même église servait à tous, la nef pour les laïques et le chœur pour les moines. Bien qu'il n'y ait jamais eu d'abbé à la tête de ses religieux le prieuré porta le nom d'Abbaye, vocable rappelant le souvenir de leur lointaine abbaye-mère de Saint-Florent-le-Vieil, en Anjou. Le prieuré devint séminaire au 17ème siècle, en même temps que la paroisse de l'Abbaye continua de jouir de la chapelle-église dédiée à Notre-Dame. Références : l'étude réalisée par Michel Pelé : "Le prieuré de l’Abbaye-sous-Dol, Le Prieuré de l’Abbaye près Dol" https://clergedol.free.fr/etudes-pdf/prieure_abbaye_sous_dol.pdf Contes-et-merveilles (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of rivers in Texas

[edit]

Example discussion for all the "Maps of rivers IN <US state>":

These maps are sorted into "Maps of rivers OF the United States", and as far as I can see the normal structure for most if not all countries in the world is "Maps of rivers OF <country or subdivision>".

For internal consistency, all these categories should be renamed to "Maps of rivers of Texas", "Maps of rivers of Ohio", "Maps of rivers of California"; with the "in"-names being kept as redirects. Enyavar (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Views with 1 bridge

[edit]

it's the default, it doesn't need a category Enhancing999 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Part of the Category:Views of bridges by number of bridges shown, see:
Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 09:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, this category would probably duplicate Category:1 bridge as well.
Also, we wouldn't need a category for 0 bridges. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't understand the category-tree, you didn't understand numbers (0 does not exist, 1 exists) and you didn't understand the arguments of the other users in the discussion 1 bridge by country. You only want to disrupt the work of experienced users (with hundreds of thousands of edits) that comply with the category-tree, with no meaningful arguments on your part. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 09:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a language issue. I didn't write that Category:Views with 0 bridges‎ exists.
You don't address the argument I presented above.
You just resort to personal attacks and ignore the opinions of people who actually contribute to the field and present a reasoned opinion. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to have understood the structure of commons. The Category:Categories by quantity start at 1,2,3,4 and go to Many. If you want to abolish the number 1 in Categories by quantity in Commons, you are discussing here in the wrong place, you should start a discussion at the top of the category-tree,... try to discuss Category:Groups of 1. I wish you a lot of fun with a pointless effort to change the existing structure in all areas. That will cost nothing but your lifetime. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 10:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the difference between Category:1 bridge and Category:Views with 1 bridge you just created? Enhancing999 (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:1 bridge is near/close. Category:Views with 1 bridge‎ is from far away, e.g. with an big overview of the city and a large bridge in the picture. Same in Category:Views with 2 bridge‎s, Category:Views with 3 bridge‎s, ...
You should inform yourself and deal with the category-tree-system, before you, as a relatively newly registered user, submit deletion requests or discuss all possible categories that correspond to the standard. In a lot of areas, we have for example Category:Buildings and Category:Views of buildings, or Category:Castles and Category:Views of castles, .... -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 10:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a place where that distinction is outlined? None of the categories you mention actually say that. Quite the contrary actually. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep anro (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep --Geoprofi Lars (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A cardinality of 1 may not seem reasonable, but it should be there for consistency alone. I do not want to discuss the meaning of "Views of", "Remote views of" or "Photographs of". --XRay 💬 11:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep but not enthusiastic about the scope defined by the comment "Category:Views with 1 bridge‎ is from far away". "Views" can mean a lot of things and is not consistent across Commons, so I think there will continue to be controversy and misunderstandings going forward. I think something like "Distant views of bridges" would be more clear, and go along with others such as "Aerial views", "partial views", "top views", or whatever other perspectives we have pictures of all under "Bridges by view" (see Category:Aircraft by view, for example). Josh (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can help out Triple C: above they are referring to some standard they are following when using "view of 1 bridge" for "remote views". Enhancing999 (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nothing is deleted just because you don't understand the concept of "views" and the arguments of others. This is how it is handled in all sorts of areas. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 05:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no agreed scope of the category, there isn't really a consensus for its creation. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5 users are for this category with keep and arguments. Only you can't understand. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 12:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, did you advertise and discuss this somewhere else? Somehow they didn't make it here. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm going to provide a different view because I don't see why the "views of bridges" category is needed. Category:Views of bridges generally isn't much. For 6 bridges or 5, I don't see a need for the 'views subcategory.' For Category:4 bridges, I think it's more clear to have the images of the bridges in the main category with art and by country as subcategories. For 2 bridges, we are merging 98 images with the 6 in the parent and I imagine a number go really into different ones by country. For the most complex one, Category:1 bridge the views could be broken down into top view or bottom if people find that useful but we are talking about 10 images that get mixed into 22 others. I understand Category:Views of buildings because we are breaking images down into top views, bottom views, remote views, but we don't do anything other than duplicate the number of bridges with "views by number of bridges." I could see renaming these to Remote views of bridges to match Category:Remote views of buildings (and whatever other views of bridges people have) but nothing in the title "views of bridges" makes it clear that it is supposed to be remote but that is more of a categorization problem than anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport buildings in Zaberfeld

[edit]

As User:Yeerge noted, streets, roads and bridges are generally not considered "buildings" in English. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I upmerged the category. The same should be done for similar. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings meint nicht Gebäude, sondern "Bauwerke"

  • Unterscheidungsformen und Typen von Bauwerken
    • Gebäude (Häuser, Garagen, Schulen, Fabrikhallen etc.)
    • Verkehrsbauwerke (Brücken, Straßen, Tunnel etc.) --> Transport buildings = Verkehrsbauwerke
    • Ver- oder Entsorgungsbauwerke (Brunnen, Kläranlagen, Sendemasten etc.)
    • Schutzbauten (Dämme, Schutzräume etc.)
    • Wehr- und Befestigungsanlagen (Türme, Festungen etc.)
    • temporäre Bauwerke (Hilfsbauten, Container etc.)

no consensus to change. like others in the Landkreis and Baden-Württemberg. discuss for whole Baden-Württemberg/Germany... not only 1 municipality -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help that you can't read. I wrote Transport buildings = Verkehrsbauwerke (Brücken, Straßen, Tunnel etc.) and i wrote that your disruptive actions against categories created by me should not be conducted at the community level, but you should start the discussion above so that it affects all categories. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 05:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You added that comment after I closed the discussion, however, it doesn't address the explanation already provided by Yeerge.
Bear in mind that no content is deleted merely because we rearrange it. This is unrelated to you, but does concern bridges.
We can fix other categories with the same problem afterwards.
We can't really discuss Category:Transport buildings as it has a different scope. Why would you create one for "Zaberfeld" that doesn't match it? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To Yerge: Incidentally, he did not comment at this discussion. He had a question on my user discussion, not here. And: I had answered him the same as you... that it only makes sense to change this for the whole of Baden-Württemberg or all of Germany, not only for Zaberfeld. You like to have discussions at the lowest community level. Take care of the whole of Germany and adapt it everywhere instead of having a discussion here. Look at the Category:Streets category at the top and do it everywhere in Category:Streets in Germany. Instead, you're having a discussion for a single municipality. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 12:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't explain why Zaberfeld (or any of the others you might have changed without people noticing) should differ from the main category: Category:Transport buildings? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fixed the categories from building to infrastucture. now this category is empty. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you summarize the definition of "transport building" you will be using going forward? Do not close this discussion yourself. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Enhancing999 and Triplec85: It appears that the issue with the nominated category has been fixed (it is now empty at least), so can we wrap this one up now? Josh (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We still need to go through the category tree to check if nothing else needs fixing. Triplec85 thinks they fixed all of them, but [1] isn't yet. So others may be affected. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed "Streets in Zaberfeld" (infrastructure instead of transport buildings) and fixed Baden-Württemberg and other "Landkreise" (districts) too and within Landkreis Heilbronn all municipalities. In my opinion you can wrap this one up now (because the discussion is about Zaberfeld). Other discussions here are not necessary. If something is not perfect categorized according to the main category, then everyone wo can should change that and don't need a discussion for every change (if it's according to the categorization of the main categories). But for me, this topic is done. I will not look after all other categories. @Enhancing999 You are free to do better categorization about Highways. But this is not the topic of this discussion. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 22:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that the problem affects entire Germany. Highways are streets. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't changed/corrected you this? It seems you just want endless discussions. Just DO IT. I mentioned that i don't understand when you discuss one municipality and others not. But this discussion is about Zaberfeld and it's done. So i am with User:Joshbaumgartner. Wrap this one up. And I have an advice for you: Just change/correct wherever you can and don't discuss so often about every community. -- Triple C 85 | User talk |
Just because I was once the one who created a category for the first time doesn't mean that I have the obligation to correct it, if you have found out that it works better, then just do it. be brave. It doesn't take a discussion for every improvement (according to the main category) when you find a incorrect subcategory. Just do it. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 23:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To wrap this up, we just need to list, check and then correct them. Nothing really to discuss. You don't need to do anything, User:Yeerge either. Thanks to them for noticing this problem. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Almonte

[edit]

There are many Almontes. Make this a disam page. Also make a Category:Almonte, California. 191.126.36.33 15:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't really seem to be a need for disambiguation. Maybe some day when we get other images. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support DAB. There are several Almonte categories currently:

Category:Almonte, California
Category:Almonte, Ontario
Category:Almonte River
Category:Almonte Antique & Collectibles (redirect)
Category:Almonte (surname)

Since there are more than one, it warrants a dab. Josh (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/07&oldid=882031431"