Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2008/07

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

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Archive July 2008

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Kiev

[edit]

Kyiv is the state official name of the city. Kyiv is the srong name in the English language. Kyiv is the only Ukrainian capital. Kiev is the only Russian name, not English. --Golota (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The city has conventional name in English. It's Kiev. I don't see reason for discussion.--Ahonc (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv has conventional name in English. Kyiv is the strong official name.--Golota (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kyiv is native name, Kiev is conventional name. If city has conventional name we use it. If city doesn't have it, we use native name.--Ahonc (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as Kiev Rocket000(talk) 18:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Negro

[edit]

Term is archaic and is now often a mild pejorative. If the category is valid at all, it should be renamed to a less problematic term (e.g. People of Black African descent). --Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonizing words solves no problems. It just creates more. The word Negro cannot and is not considered offensive by anyone else than a few non-Negroes who try to act important by arbitrarily declaring a few words tabu. This should be explained, however, in a short text on the category's page. EmilEikS (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the English Wikipedia's article on the word, "it is often considered an ethnic slur although the term is considered archaic and is not common as a racist slur." It is certainly not a word in common present-day use to refer to the subject of the category. It seems to me that whether we consider it a slur or an archaism, it is not a good category name. As for "cannot and is not considered offensive", the Merriam Webster begs to differ. -- Jmabel ! talk 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong but I really thought I heard the word used by at least one of the wonderful Negro participants during the recent inauguration ceremony in Washington. And didn't Aretha Franklin use it too in the Larry King interview a few days later? Who are we trying to "protect" with all this "sensitivity"? Are we really hip to the lip on this one? EmilEikS (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where you are from, so I don't know your perspective on this. I'm a white, Jewish American with a pretty large number of black friends. As I said, in some contexts the word is merely archaic, but outside of conscious archaism it carries a weird set of connotations. It was once the preferred term for the racial/ethnic group in question, and carries a certain tinge of the pre-1965 era, which is to say before the key civil rights legislation in the U.S. It survives in the names of certain older organizations (United Negro Fund, for example), as does "colored people" in the name of the NAACP, and is certainly not a pejorative in those contexts. Outside of archaism and quasi-archaism, it carries a certain connotation of middle-class striverdom, and can be used as a put-down by one black person of another to suggest (depending on context) that the person referred to is a bit uptight and over-concerned with impressing the white folks. Conversely, I've also heard one black person address another who was behaving a bit outrageously with "Negro, pleeease!". I've never heard a white person say that, and suspect it would be taken as one hell of a pejorative if one did. And, Emil, if you referred to "wonderful Negro participants" while talking in the presence of the people to whom you are referring, I'm pretty comfortable in saying you'd come off as stodgy at best, and more likely as condescending to a point bordering on the clueless. - Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cross-posted to en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cross-posted to en:Talk:Negro. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, the word "Negro" has been out of use for roughly 40 years and, as Jmabel wrote, it's considered somewhat pejorative. "People of Black African descent" is currently in vogue on English Wikipedia for describing, well, people of Black African descent. It's a neutral, almost clinical, phrase. I would support renaming the category. — Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel seems to feel much more strongly about getting the word out of here than I feel about keeping it. Particularly, I don't want anyone to have any excuses ever again to call me "stodgy at best, and ... condescending to a point bordering on the clueless", which I found very offensive and totally unnecessary to resort to. Especially since the word was used during the inauguration like a normal term, like it was a few decades ago. So sad that almost every constructive discussion you try to have with Wikipedians ends up deteriorating rather quickly to territorial bravado and personal attacks! I detest divisiveness. Let's not compete about who is the most American or who has the highest amount of "black friends" please! Let's just get this controversial word out of here! How long must that take? How much discussion and how many quasi-insults bandied back and forth? Let's just get it done already! EmilEikS (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we have consensus to remove this category (even if the consensus is reluctant). EmilEikS, sorry if what I said came off as a personal attack. I have roughly no idea who you are, and no opinion of you as a person. I was commenting on how a word usage would come off, nothing more or less. - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, totaly wrong categorization sheme by a user who created some other useles categories. It is a common concern for a photo database to find different collored people, for this purpose we have Category:People with black skin. Delete this nonsense categorie. --Martin H. (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, the term is offensive and redundant. Fences and windows (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:People of Black African descent
--Foroa (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Former buildings

[edit]

Should be renamed, maybe to Category:Repurposed buildings or some such. Although there is an explanation at the top of the category page, of course the name keeps drawing in content that belongs in Category:demolished buildings and draws in very little that belongs here. --Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the argument that "the name keeps drawing in content that..." - what do you base that on? I do not object to a rename as such, though. Ingolfson (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with a "Buildings by former use" rename. Ingolfson (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with rename to Category:Repurposed buildings. I'm not a English speaker, but I take former buildings only as something, what isn't a building now – therefore demolished buildings. Former train station isn't a former building, if it isn't demolished. --ŠJů (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Support of Daniel's proposal (Bulding by former use). --ŠJů (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Buildings by former use", with same subcats and no images in top-level category. I used a similar name for a category I recently created on enwiki; I think that makes it clear that the building is extant and avoids confusing neologisms like "repurposed". That category could be used, however, for buildings used for one purpose originally (like a school) but now converted to another. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Buildings by former use; note removed. Content will need to be recategorised manually. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:50, 14 September 2008 (GMT)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Trail Markers, Category:Trail blazes and Category:Hiking and footpath signs

[edit]

These 3 categories have too similar determination. It should be resolved, whether all three have rest and what have be their relations. --ŠJů (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Trail blazes and trail markers; they're the same, pretty much. But they're both distinct from "hiking and footpath signs" as they merely indicate the presence and direction of the trail, whereas signage gives the name of the trail, distances to key points, and other information. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The hiking routes are signed only by painted signs (without the name and distances) in some areas, only by wooden or sheetmetal direction board in any others, and by both of them together in many areas – and by rod signs or by stone piles in mountains. Beside permanent „official“ signed routes are signs for single, temporary or ocassional use – in sand, by sticks dart etc. How have it be taken into account in the categorisation? --ŠJů (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Agree with Daniel: merge markers and blazes into one cat (keeping second word of cat name in lower case), leave Hiking and footpath signs distinct. I'm not super knowledgeable about how wiki categories in general are organized and conceived--they often strike me as redundant, chaotic, or not well considered. At first glance, I think it would be a good idea to define each category on the category's page. I can't imagine I'm the first one to come up with the idea--maybe there's something I've missed that already covers that? --Eric my en.wp talk page 16:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I created Category:Trail Markers a while back, and I have no problem with it being merged with Category:Trail blazes. It makes perfect sense to me. I do believe that the Hiking and footpath signs should remain a separate category though. --Jomegat (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --Ardo Beltz (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The redirected Category:Trail Markers have been moved now to Category:Trail markers (correct capitalisation). --Foroa (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Hip hop emcees

[edit]

Redundant to Category:Rappers where it should be moved. --Spellcast (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. The one person I categorized there - Gabriel Teodros - I wouldn't necessarily classify as a "rapper". He works in a hip-hop context, but his flow is not typical of rap. But I wouldn't necessarily mind a merge, as long as we keep a {{Seecat}}. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean with his style of delivery. But rapping is simply defined as talking rhythmically over a beat, which is essentially what he does. Spellcast (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a terribly broad definition of rapping. By that standard, Lou Reed is a rapper. - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we tweak the definition to the "rhythmic spoken delivery of rhymes and wordplay", he would still fall under that category. Google "gabriel teodros rapper" and many reliable sources like music reviews and news articles refer to him as a rapper. Sure, he's more "soulful" than your average rapper, but he's still one nonetheless. Anyway, I agree a {{seecat}} would be a good option. Spellcast (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Been over a month; you and I seem to be the only ones weighing in and we have a consensus, I'll just go for it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as a category redirect. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Economical diagrams

[edit]

I believe it would be better English to change all the "Economical ..." and "Economics ..." subcategories to "Economic ..."

Since there are so many images to move, it would be nice if a bot could do it.

It should be "Economic diagrams"

It is correctly categorized under "Economics".

Also, the other subcategories should be:

  • Economic block diagrams
  • Economic bar charts
  • Economic graphs
  • Economic pie charts

There may be more subcategories at deeper levels that need to be changed. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this proposal. I think this needs some considerable consideration.
Now I doesn't matter so much how the categories are named as long as there is one standard.
I based my choice on the existing categories in Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme
  • on categories ending with ...cal: like the category Mathematical diagrams, Medical diagrams and Technical diagrams.
But I admit there are other naming conventions here:
  • on categories ending with ...s: like , Physics diagrams, Sports diagrams
  • and categories without and ending, like: Astronomy diagrams, Biology diagrams, Chemistry diagrams.
So there are three kinds of naming conventions here. I wonder when to use which, or should we make one choice here.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see from your user page that you are not a native speaker of English. The English language has many inconsistencies. My suggestions in this category-for-discussion page only have to do with correcting English usage, and not about your ideas for categorization. I like your ideas for subcategorization. See further discussion here: Category talk:Economics graphs. By the way that category should be named Category:Economic graphs and not Category:Economics graphs, in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree, and I will make the adjustments from the Category:Economical diagrams to the Category:Economic diagrams, -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! It looks like everything has been resolved without the need for bot help. Thanks for copying the previously-mentioned talk from Category talk:Economics graphs to Category talk:Diagrams.--Timeshifter (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement reached: --Foroa (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Adult videos

[edit]

Sure. Commons is not censored. But commons is also not a porn site. Why do we have a separate adult videos category? --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title is certainly inappropriate. "Adult video" is an euphemism for "porn video". If they belong to Commons at all, these films should be at "category:sexology", "Category:Penis", or similar. Rama (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title is somewhat ambiguous, which is not helped by the fact that no description has ever been provided. At WP w:adult video redirects to 'pornographic film'. It should be renamed 'pornographic videos' then, but that's not its scope except for one video: "Pornographic films are motion pictures with the purpose of promoting sexual arousal in the viewer, often featuring depictions of sexual activity.". The purpose here is entirely to be educational, although Blonde stag film.ogg can be called a pornographic film. Maybe dissolving the category entirely is the best idea, or giving it a more general name (we should keep in mind that it is a video category, so moving them to 'category:sexology' isn't that great. Maybe a video category with a broader scope, e.g. 'category:human sexuality videos' would be a better idea. Richard001 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds okay to me. Richard001 (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Chartres Cathedral

[edit]

This category has recently been renamed from Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres to Chartres Cathedral without any discussions and also apparently without seeking consensus. I open this discussion to avoid any future moves back and forth for this category. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to take a look at this discussion at the corresponding gallery page. I personally would appreciate the consideration of following points:
--AFBorchert (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My priority is that people feel at home here and that they can at least have the galleries with a local name. I feel that the category name can be harmonised in the same sense as it is a proper name. But do not invert the rules or invent new ones in the sense of because now the category name is in English, the gallery name should be in English. You don't do that with the category:Cologne and Category:Cologne Cathedral along with their Köln and Kölner Dom neither (Cathedral should be without Capital C). --Foroa (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today, SieBot was moving the categories Category:Chartres Cathedral, Category:Interior of Chartres Cathedral, Category:Exterior of Chartres Cathedral, and Category:Plans of Chartres Cathedral. The deeper subcategories of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres were, however, not yet moved. Examples are Category:Right bay of north porch of Chartres Cathedral, Category:Central bay of Royal portal of Chartres Cathedral or Category:Stained glass windows of Notre-Dame de Chartres. The latter category survived the last category move such that we have now three different stems for this cathedral in the associated category tree. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might be more efficient to write these comments straight into {{source}} format in User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. --Foroa (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siebrand asked me to add {{Move}} templates to the not yet moved categories and I have just done this. Do I see this correctly that we have multiple bots who move categories around? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the correct formal procedure. Normally, if there are no complaints within two weeks, an administrator has to take the requests, transform them in commands for the delinker as documented above and when completed, remove the commands and remove the move request in the category and delete or redirect the original category. I suggested in fact a shortcut because there is already a basic agreement. The delinker executes its given commands one by one, each of them probably submitted to one or more threads. There are other bots active, but operated by their respective "owner" and not accessible for mortals like you and me. --Foroa (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional notes, Foroa. I've now filed the delinker commands as suggested. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you take out the moves again (why I suggested this shortcut). I have to go urgently. --Foroa (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for your help, Foroa. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closed according to general Cathedrals in France style
--Foroa (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Carl von Linné

[edit]

The most famous botanical systematist of all time was given the name Carl Linnaeus at birth, and published under that name or the Latinised equivalent Carolus Linnaeus. He adopted the name Carl von Linné after his ennoblement in 1761, and presumably went by that name thereafter. In this day and age, every botanist, and indeed a great many non-botanists, are familiar with the name Linneaus, but most of them wouldn't have a clue who this von Linné chap was. Therefore I propose a move to Category:Carl Linnaeus. Hesperian 02:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google doesn't distinguish between "Linné" and "Linne", and the latter is also a town. The message here is that "Linnaeus" overwhelmingly defeats any other name, which is the point I am trying to make. Hesperian 02:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close The ghits have supported the nominators rationale, rather than the assertion about the current title, his surname is the most widely recognised and cited. No reason has been proposed to keep it this adopted title. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Category:Carl Linnaeus.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:The Pussycat Dolls

[edit]

Should be moved to Category:Pussycat Dolls for consistency with Wikipedia. "The" isn't part of the official title. --Spellcast (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested the move. --rimshottalk 13:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved as per request. --rimshottalk 13:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Information graphics

[edit]

Should be renamed back to Category:Infographics, because the term "Infographic" is much more beeing used internationally then the term "Information graphics", for example in countries like the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy etc. --Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Information graphics" is the full name and is self-explanatory. "Infographics" is not always understandable to some people. "Infographics" is not found in many dictionaries and spelling checkers. See the discussion page for en:Information graphics. Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote there: "Infographics is a relativelly new and unknown term." Google finds both "information graphics" and "infographics" in hundreds of thousands of English pages. We don't solely use the quantity of Google results to make these kinds of naming decisions anyway. See w:WP:NAME. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will explain some more. The term "Infographics" is common good. According to Google-rates:
  • In English: Information graphics - 207.000. Infographics - 542.000
  • In Germany: Informationsgrafik - 7.170. Infografik - 673.000 (at www.google.de)
  • In Holland: Informatie grafiek - 42. Infographics - 38.100 (in texts in the Dutch language)
Etc... In Germany and Holland about 99% of the people use the term infographics. This strongly indicates the term "Infographic" is much more international. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People come to the Commons from many languages. Some use variations of "infographics" and know what they are looking for, and some have little idea of what category they need. See the introduction to Category:Diagrams, and the discussions at Category talk:Diagrams to read of similar problems with definitions and where to find graphics. The more information we provide them, the easier it will be for them to find what they have in mind. I am a native speaker of English and infographics is not a word I am likely to use in conversation. "Graphics" may be the only word that many people will think of. It is a very common word. See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=graphics - 384 million pages.
We might help people more by putting both names in the category name: "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)". --Timeshifter (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see it's already there. Where is the problem everyone sees the right name...--Ma-Lik (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This category started 2.5 years ago as "Category:Infographics", and the actual question here is if this should remain this way. A few days ago, just overnight, the category has been renamed "Category:Information graphics" by Timeshifter claiming "Infographics" is a bad name. But there is nothing bad about that name. I just think this category shouldn't have been renamed in the first place. But maybe there are other reasons to keep it like this. This is why I started this discussion in the first place. From a discussion on the German talk page, I already understood there are. But as German, I think, you could better explain yourselve. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think it's casual thing and if anybody searches for the Infographics, he will find the "right" category. It's the same thing with the plural, e.g. Category:House and Category:Houses, I think everybody types first House but the "right" category is houses.--Ma-Lik (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MDD. I did not say infographics was a bad name when I added the redirect tag to Category:Infographics that pointed to Category:Information graphics. It looks like you misread the tag. People make many minor changes to category names on the commons. For spelling, clarity, grammar, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now. You didn't give any reason at all. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed at Category talk:Diagrams#Explanatory diagrams, but for some reason you refused to discuss it there further. Then you started this discussion here. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for several years now I am used to the situation on Wikipedia, that if you want to change a long existing category, you discuss this first. You don't say: "Hey, I have a new idea" at 00:30 at that one talkpage ... and then the next minute at 00.39 remove all content from the Category:Infographics, which has been created more then 2 years ago on 4 March 2006. There was definitely no discussion on Category talk:Diagrams#Explanatory diagrams about this. All you stated at 00.30 there where some fuzzy thoughts:
http://images.google.nl/images?q=information+graphics pulls up the same type of stuff as http://images.google.nl/images?q=explanatory+diagrams in my opinion. They are all graphics that share information beyond what a photo or unlabeled drawing can do.
I think the problem may be with the modern word "infographics". I think I am going to use the full phrase "information graphics" as the category name. Category:Information graphics instead of Category:Infographics. "Information graphics" sounds more serious than "infographics." The 2 words that make up the phrase have been around a long time and people know what both words mean. Plus "information graphics" seems to have been in use longer than "infographics".....
And whoops at 00.39 you blanked the Category:Infographics. One of the reasons, I make such a point of it is, that you still think this is completely normal. You stated that I am silly to even talk about it, because "it happens all the time". Nice going, corrupting the situation. Sorry I fear, that if I don't ring a bell, you keep the impression that you have a wildcard to change whatever you like. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not a big deal. It was a side discussion. It was a minor change. It was not controversial. It is easy to change back. Rather than discuss it further there where the discussion started you went to an administrator noticeboard, and then to here. We could have had the same discussion we had here without all that. Categories are frequently renamed for clarity, spelling, grammar, etc.. This happens all the time. You didn't ask permission to create the categories and galleries you have created. I currently have over 5000 edits on the Commons, and over 13,000 on English Wikipedia. I have created or renamed many categories. You also went to the German wikipedia page on information graphics, and they came to the same conclusion I did. See de:Diskussion:Informationsgrafik#"Informationsgrafik" and "Infografik". The discussion is in English. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it no big deal to you, do you agree, that I refert the situation? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misrepresent what I say. Renaming categories is not usually such a big deal. I am not the only one to prefer the title of these articles and categories to be "Information graphics." I would be happy with "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)". --Timeshifter (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dreaming. In a hunch you change the internationally frequently used name into an hardly used name in the Netherlands and Germany. And this is no big deal? You violated the normal Wikipedia procedure, and keep trying to sweep it under the pillow. And it is all no big deal? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far, no one seems to agree with you. I suggest you read w:WP:CIVIL. "Keep dreaming" can be considered rude in English, and not very civil. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is the most current discussion, but seems quite current. Do I understand this correctly:
There was a category 'infographics' for ~2 years that has been renamed to 'information graphics' on the grounds that:
  1. 'information graphics' is more technical sounding than 'infographics' (particularly in German)
  2. People will be able to search for 'information graphics' more easily because they may use one of the two terms rather than the name 'infographics'
On the other hand:
  1. The category has been here for a while, and has been called infographics for that time
  2. 'infographics' is what the field is called, according to Google and according to the people who coined the term
My 2 cents is that this is best resolved by calling the category 'Infographics (information graphics)', as has been suggested because:
  1. People searching for Infographics know what they are looking for and know how to search for it - as they have done up until now
  2. People searching for 'information' or 'graphics' may have no interest in infographics, or they may become curious. Either way, how people search is independent of what infographics is
  3. Infographics is what the field of study is called by those who write about it. Not information graphics, nor graphinfo nor infographtion. We should not make up names for fields of study because the new name 'sounds more technical than the actual term' (even if I agree)
Dhatfield (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with either "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)". It does not matter which to me. I would like to point out what the scholars in the field use though. Here are some Google Scholar results below.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22information+graphics%22 - 3840 results.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=infographics - 506 results.
Of course, most other people (myself included) end up using "infographics" because it is quicker and easier to type out.
As the German wikipedia talk page pointed out it is fairly common in Wikipedia to use full names for article titles. I also believe that many more people will search for "graphics" compared to those searching for "infographics." So users of Google may find the relevant Wikipedia articles and categories a little easier if "graphics" is spelled out separately in the title. So if we cannot use both names, then I believe we should use the full name, "Information graphics", for that reason. As I said before "graphics" is a very common word.
See: http://www.google.com/search?q=graphics - 384 million results. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think both alternatives are unacceptable. But if you insist, please do proceed. I will request that new category to be deleted. Then we can continu this discussion over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should discuss it more here before creating a new category. Then there is no need for a deletion discussion in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)" are simply impossible to write down. I don't think the both of you have realized that this actualy is needed so once in a while. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhatfield. Your interpretation surprises me:
  • I stated: In Germany: Informationsgrafik - 7.170. Infografik - 673.000 (at www.google.de)
  • And you interpret: 'information graphics' is more technical sounding than 'infographics' (particularly in German)
The situation in Germany is simply that only 1% of the people use the word 'information graphics' and 99% 'infographics'. One of the two term is hardly beeing used. That is the whole point here. The title here should be te most accaptable most used term. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most people don't know either term. The word infographics is not in my 1986 print version of the Webster's dictionary. It is also not in other authoritative dictionaries online. See:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infographics - no results.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infographics - no results. This site uses several dictionaries that put out print editions too.
Also, the word "infographics" is not used in many other languages. There are variations in spelling, or a word is used that doesn't look anything like the spelling of infographics. People coming to the commons from many nations will search using English. "Graphics" is more likely to be the word used by many non-native speakers of English during searches.
In English here are some Google results in descending order:
http://www.google.com/search?q=graphics - 384 million.
http://www.google.com/search?q=infographics - 670,000.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22information+graphics%22 - 415,000.
Infographics is becoming more popular, but it is still not a commonly used word by many people. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have been over those numbers a few times now, just as we have talked about the meaning of the term, which is vaque, and we also agreed that little people know the word. What keeps me worried is the way it has effected the construction of the Category:Infographics:
  • First, the category was upgraded to a main category in the field of visualization
  • Second, the category was renamed to Category:Information graphics
  • Third, there is a proposal to rename it to "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)"
Now we agreed these terms are relatively new, unknown, and not permanent defined. Personly I can get over the second move and accept the current name, if for example the first step is turned back. Is this an acceptable compromise? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't studied the definition of "visualization" much. Here is a start:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visualization
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/visualization
The 2008 Merriam Webster online dictionary definition number 2 seems to be relevant: "2  : the act or process of interpreting in visual terms or of putting into visible form".
That sounds like it could cover illustrations and visual media of any kind. But shouldn't this be discussed at Category talk:Visualization? I started a discussion there. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I gave a response over there. Maybe you can give a response here to my last question if this is an acceptable compromis. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the 2 discussions need to be tied together. One is not dependent on the other. We shouldn't be deciding for others in a separate discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to summarize this situation here one last time: Infographics, and information graphics are two alternative terms. Both terms are relatively unknown and undefined, their popularity started rising since the 1980s. The biggest difference between the both is, that internationally only the term Infographics is popular. In the Netherlands and Germany less then 1% uses the information graphics, or its local translation.
  1. Now a category infographics was created here 2.5 years ago, which was focused on the core idea of infographics as a specific type of graphic formats. The Wikipedia article w:Information graphics explains: Information graphics or infographics are visual representations of information, data or knowledge. These graphics are used anywhere where complex information needs to be explained quickly and clearly, such as in information sign, maps, journalism, technical writing, and education.
  2. Now 20 July 2008 Timeshifter decided on his own to popularize the category by introducing the broadest scope possible: Images that are information graphics (infographics). Information graphics include signs, charts, graphs, diagrams, maps, tables, labeled drawings, etc.. Almost any illustration or animation that has elements of abstract information in it. Photos and drawings of objects, or photos from nature (such as plant, bird and animal drawings), are not considered information graphics unless there is an overlay of abstract information combined with them. Art and cartoons are not infographics.(see here).
  3. At the same time Timeshifter made it a top category in the field of all graphics, by collecting the categories charts, diagrams, graphs and maps in that category.
  4. One week later Timeshifter again decided on his own this new top category needed the name "Information graphics", and renamed the category. Every body knows "Information graphics are graphics that show information", so let it be.

Now there are two things we can do here.

  1. Restored the category, focused on the specific type of graphic formats, with the international term in use.
  2. Keep the top category on the broadest meaning possible, under the broadest term "Information graphics".

I will rest my case. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and the Commons tries to make it easy for people to find stuff in the categories. I have already replied to nearly all of this in my previous comments. See my previous comments concerning popularity of words.
As for category descriptions Wikipedia and the Commons tries to use the standard, most common definitions of words used in article and category titles. Category descriptions should reflect this too. When it is difficult to figure this out we do the best we can in trying to figure out what is the most common definition from the various definitions in standard dictionaries. When that doesn't work we go to the standard reference books found with tools such as Google Scholar. All of this helps users of the commons in finding stuff. Since users of the commons are not all native speakers of English they need us to use the most common definitions. It is a judgment call to balance all these factors. See also the discussion at en:Talk:Information graphics for more info on Google Scholar results and definitions.--Timeshifter (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw this request, and will remove the template from the category. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this as withdrawn by nominator. Wknight94 talk 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Hip hop male singers

[edit]

This category is basically comprised of rappers instead of rappers who "sing". It's redundant to Category:Rappers --Spellcast (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to agree how to name categories of hip hop vocalists / rappers / singers. Then we'll keep two subcategories by genre. The Category:Rappers (or however we call it at the end) should encomprise both female and male artists. --Javier ME (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's necessary to categorise rappers by gender, but if it's going to be done, we can simply use Category:Female rappers and Category:Male rappers. Spellcast (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale discussion from 2008. Please open a new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 05:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2008/07&oldid=31826050"