Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/02

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 February 2010

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Map categories showing history by period

[edit]

This category name is confusing; we don't usually have categories with "category" in their name. I think that this category should be merged to Category:Maps showing history by period. I fail to see the need for those categories to be separate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Category:Maps showing history by period was created later. I agree that it is a better name. We can go ahead and merge them together now. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to Category:Maps showing history by period. --rimshottalk 21:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Professional audio equipments

[edit]

Reasons for discussion request: Empty category that is redundant to many other audio related categories --Andyzweb (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 15:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Professional audio

[edit]

Reasons for discussion request: empty category that will not be used --Andyzweb (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 15:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Synagogues in the Colorado

[edit]

Typographical error, should have been "Synagogues in Colorado". Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Synagogues in Colorado. --rimshottalk 21:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Replica and subcategories

[edit]

I believe that in accord with general policy on Commons to pluralize common-noun category names, this should be Category:Replicas, and similarly for subcategories. Many of these subcategories were recently renamed from replica as an adjective (e.g. "Replica ships") to replica as a noun (e.g. "Replica of ships"). If we are using it as a noun, it should be plural.

Also, as a native English speaker, I strongly disagree with the assertion currently made on the page Category:Replica that "The plural form 'replicas' is rarely used." No doubt it doesn't come up as often as the singular—after all, the most common use of the word is certainly just "It's a replica"—but there's nothing unusual about it: consider "See those ships over there? They're replicas," or "I've been trying to find a real Bugatti, but all the ones around here are just replicas." -- Jmabel ! talk 06:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Replica of Donatello's David might be an exception, because I believe it is a category about one particular replica of a statue. Possibly similarly Category:Replica of the Ancient Roman mosaic in Vichten. Someone may identify some other similar cases. - Jmabel ! talk 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there are already several category names that use the plural replicas: e.g. Category:Modern replicas of ancient Roman statues in Vaison-la-Romaine, Category:Replicas of the Augustus of Prima Porta. - Jmabel ! talk 06:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Replica ships" was fine, "replica of ships" is not good at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitated long time , mainly because I felt that replica is plural too. Replica is quite common and exist in many languages. Replicas is wrong in many languages and in many English dictionaries. The advantage of the more "modular" "replica of" construction is that it is more uniform with commons naming and extensible. "Replica sailing ships", Replica Michelangelo's David", Replica Statue of Liberty in the United States don't sound right to me. Anyway, in an international multi-language context, we have to be conservative with English and careful not to use too much "modern" English that is not accepted by a large number of English dictionaries (that should have priority over the "impressions" of native speakers). Here a list of categories starting with Replica and containing replica. --Foroa (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a native speaker of English, right? But you "feel" that replica can be a plural in English?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we cannot base naming on feelings why we have to call in accepted reference works. --Foroa (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would defer to Jmabel's impression as a native speaker when it comes to usage in England. But what reference did you have for the use of replica as a plural? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My latin is getting quite rusty, but the fact that the plural does not exist in probably a majority of dictionaries (I checked +- 10) is a clear indication to me. --Foroa (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a noun in classical Latin?? It is no use consulting stacks of dictionaries, when you do not know how to interpret them. The absence of a plural form in a lemma (in some dictionaries) does not mean that the word can be a plural. Look up sheep or swine for examples. If a word has an irregular plural, it will be explicitly noted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for what it's worth, "sheep" and "swine" don't change in the plural (ditto "deer", "elk", quite a few animals like that). "Replica" is an entirely other matter. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is no use consulting stacks of dictionaries, when you do not know how to interpret them." "You are not a native speaker of English, right?" - How are these comments relevant? Please stick to the argument itself.
As for the mattter at hand - since both the versions with and without "of" are correct gramatically, there is no reason to go back to those without "of", which is less typical for Commons usage. So it is really only about "S or no S" matter. Can the people who prefer the "replicaS" plural form please provide arguments for the proposed change? I do not care either way in this specific case (Replica or replicas), but some cites and references would be appropriate. Ingolfson (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because as many verbs, that become a noun, only slowly evolve to a plural form: mascara(s), Counterfeit(s), walk(s), ... --Foroa (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good analogy: "counterfeit coins" is fine, and "counterfeits of coins" is acceptable. However, "counterfeit of coins" is not a plural, it is something like the act of counterfeiting, forgery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the "of", but (as the original "appellant" for adding the s) all I can say is that as a native speaker, this is word I've never before seen or heard pluralized in any but the usual manner for English: adding an s. I don't know what dictionaries you've consulted, but in my experience most English-language dictionaries don't bother giving the plural for nouns that pluralize normally. Could you have a look and see if the one you say omitted a plural for "replica" gives an explicit plural for "stove" or "pen", words that I'm assuming we can all agree are pluralized by adding s? - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of English, I can vouch for the use of "replicas". I had no idea anyone even considered "replica" plural. Rocket000 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although several dictionaries seem not to support "replicas", some support replica's, the fact that Harraps and Encarta indicate Replicas as plural should be sufficient to accept the word here. --Foroa (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we consider this discussion closed unless somebody has something new to say? Ingolfson (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems to me that every native English speaker who has weighed in has agreed that, in plural, it should be "replicas". Is there any disagreement? - Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thread closed: Please make the corresponding rename requests at User talk:Category-bot. -- User:Docu at 07:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Auguste Rodin's *

[edit]

There are a few Category:Auguste Rodin's * categories in Category:Auguste Rodin. It seems to me the author's name should come last, giving first information about what it is, and then who created it. So I would suggest renaming those categories to something like Category:* by Auguste Rodin. Also, it might me a good idea to group all of these under Category:Statues by Auguste Rodin; there is already Category:Sculptures by Auguste Rodin, but statue seems more generic than sculptures. –Tryphon☂ 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today I think that "* by Auguste Rodin" is better, in my opinion some of the statues by Auguste Rodin deserve their own category especially if they are been exhibeted in several museums and states. Yair-haklai (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I realize I wasn't very clear in what I said about grouping these under Category:Statues by Auguste Rodin. I was referring to the Category:* by Auguste Rodin categories, not the images themselves. In other words, I think it might be useful to have Category:* by Auguste Rodin ⊂ Category:Statues by Auguste Rodin ⊂ Category:Auguste Rodin instead of Category:* by Auguste Rodin ⊂ Category:Auguste Rodin directly. –Tryphon☂ 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The theme is not less important than the artist, especially with great artists like Rodin that meant to create something meaningfull. The category Auguste Rodin includes many images and needs subcategories and Statues by Auguste Rodin or Sculptures by Auguste Rodin is not exactly a subcategory they may be intermediate categories. You don't give a serious answer to your statement "giving first information about what it is" by mentioning that it is a sculpture or a statue. And this is why it is very difficult to understand you, when dealing with themes like "Adam", "Eve", "The kiss", "The Prodigal Son‎", "Poet and Muse", "Eternal Spring‎" ,"Amor and Psyche‎" I would like to see other performing or visual art artists that created a work of art based on the same themes. This themes can give inspiration to other artists and articles. Themes by Rodin are very much universal. Yair-haklai (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you misunderstood me. I'm suggesting two changes:
  1. Move Category:Auguste Rodin's * to Category:* by Auguste Rodin (this is what I meant by "giving first information about what it is, and then who created it", i.e. Adam describes the statue, by Auguste Rodin then gives the information about who made it);
  2. Group all these Category:* by Auguste Rodin under Category:Statues by Auguste Rodin (as subcategories), which itself would be a subcategory of Category:Auguste Rodin.
Is this what you understood? Do you object to any of these changes? Do you have a better suggestion? –Tryphon☂ 08:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object. Yair-haklai (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. –Tryphon☂ 11:08, 15 March 2010 (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:Human anatomy, set of subject: User:Juicybnana

[edit]

And the parent category: Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted.

I think the name itself says what's wrong with it. It's essentially a category made exclusively for images of another user's body parts. One part in particular... I can't of any way in which this would be useful categorization. Maybe if you were writing an article on the specific anatomy of a random person, but I doubt anyone's going to be doing that. At the best, this is simply excessive, useless categorization. Currently, it's the only one Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted, which is a bad idea for obvious reasons, so that should be deleted as well. -Rocket000 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strongly oppose deletion, suggest re-name; this is an unfinished project in categorizing. i wasn't satisfied with "username" as the naming convention & went away & got busy with other things. hadn't got back to this yet. the basic purpose isn't hard to grasp though: when we have anatomy files of the same subject-person it is more useful to group them together. it allows a more complete & beter definition of subject.

it is also useful to categorize by gender, age/stage of development, & species (which a lot of anatomy material is not!).

i've been working on & off @ improving the organization of the human anatomy material for some time, in between other projects. it gets kind of boring being the only person doing the work...

the cited sub-cat should be renamed, & i'm open to suggestions; the super-cat should remain, unless someone can improve the wording. Lx 121 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic: Categorizing "by species" isn't that important for anatomy. Organisms share many anatomical features. Of course if your studying a specific species, you want that species, however each species already has it's own category where you can find the material. Rocket000 (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
excuse me!?: "Categorizing "by species" isn't that important for anatomy." with respect, that statement shows a massive ignorance of the topic. i do not intend for this to be taken as a personal insult by the above user, but i invite them to go to wikipedia, & start reading in the anatomy section, since the above comment shows a significant lack of understanding of the subject. Lx 121 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol. I can't be insulted when the responder shows his own short-comings. Slow down, and think about what I said. "Organisms share many anatomical features." They do. To study what a heart is, the species isn't important. The organism is, of course, but hearts don't very much from one species to another. When we dissect an animal it's not just to learn about that animal, is it? Rocket000 (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is a very good idea to bring together some anatomy images of some models of different origin and age, this greatly helps to compare diverse anatomies. Perhaps the category names could be, for example, Subject 1: uncircumcised caucasian male, age xxx; and the parent category Human sexual anatomy, by individual. Richiex (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like a gallery than a category. Rocket000 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. There should be only the parent category and under that pages named like ditto. Richiex (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i thought of that, & the related images thing as well, but the bottom line is categories are the de facto, default organizing system on wmc. nobody is seriously trying to organize the catalogue of commons' material into pages/galleries, or anything else; there's just too much stuff, it take to long to make pages, & they are too hard to update, therefore they're never comprehensive. until/unless we get some better organizing tools categorization is the only thing that really works on here. agreed that the naming convention needs improvement; we've established that usernames are problematic, & the current numbering system is meant as a temporary, provisional solution. was thinking along the lines of: human anatomy (set of) subject (x); (gender) (age/approximation) (ethnicity as related to appearance/physical characteristics; touchy subject, needs to be handled carefully) (any other annotations; possibly stats like weight/height, medical conditions, etc.). not sure how to compress that enough tho, to make a reasonable title length. Lx 121 (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also; it's meant to cover human anatomy in general, not just sexual. any anatomy models we've got, with multiple images, should be catalogued here, i just ended up doing the sexual stuff first, because that's what i've been sorting; mainly because i don't have to worry about other users endlessly trying to censor/delete images of other (non-controvertial) parts of human anatomy... Lx 121 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. per nomination. High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Association football national teams

[edit]

It is a bit confusing to have most subcategories named in different (local) languages and sorted by English names. For example the German football team is listed as "Deutsche ..." but sorted as "Germany". I think it would be good to change the categories so that all use English names. It seems that teams with non-latin alphabets already use English category names like "X national soccer team". Englands category is named "X national association football team". I don't know if one of those two patterns is better than the other, but both are improvements to the current naminng. --Ö 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support moves. En.wp uses pattern of "Austria national football team" so that is good for me. Wknight94 talk 03:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. This had been open a while with no opposition so I went ahead and did the moves. Wknight94 talk 13:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Comic artists

[edit]

Who are a comic artist? A sculptor whit a big red crooked nose? A comics creator (parent category)? A comedian (sister projects/interwikilinks)? --Diwas (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Most of the errors and doubts should be taken away by now. --Foroa (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Foroa. Now I see clear. I guess to complete it, a move to Category:Comics artists would be a good idea? --Diwas (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The s is comics is a bit shocking, but you are right. --Foroa (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the following to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands:
Rename Category:Comic artists to Category:Comics artists (196 entries moved, 4 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Comics artists is commonly used for this artists. The old name Comic artists is ambiguous. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/02/Category:Comic artists --Diwas (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2010 (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:Categories by Albedo-ukr

[edit]

This category is for categories created by User:Albedo-ukr. Seriously. It doesn't help people find media, it's not a "user gallery" in any sense of the word (that what it's marked as), goes against COM:OWN, and serves no other meaningful purpose. Imagine if everyone starting categorizing galleries, categories, templates, etc. because they added a couple lines of text to it... I still can't believe someone thought this would be a good idea. Rocket000 (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, time to set a precedent. Blurpeace 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense to delete if subcats remain. --Foroa (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I will remove them. -- User:Docu at 06:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Nearly all subcategories of category:Coats of arms by tinctures

[edit]

As there is no black, blue, yellow, etc. in Heraldry lot of wikiheraldists (here and on fr.wiki) think about renaming non-sens cat. like Category:Black and blue in heraldry in Category:Azure and sable in heraldry.

After a discusion on Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry I launched CommonsDelinker but Docu (talk · contribs) ask me to open a CfD.

So is there any opposition to these logicals renaming ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a bit hesitant on this which is why I asked Vigneron to open this discussion. The current naming (black and blue) may be more accessible to the general public, but the specialist might dislike it. With category redirects and category descriptions, we could probably accommodate the former. If we do use "Azure and sable", the "in heraldry" part of the category name is somewhat redundant. -- User:Docu at 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to en.wp: Or is frequently spelt with a capital letter (e.g. Gules, a fess Or) so as not to confuse it with the conjunction or. Rocket000 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English is not my native language. I just know that Or is often with a capital (it’s logical to distinguish or/Or, imagine “argent and or in heraldry”). I’m not sure for the other tinctures. But the wikiheraldist approve this. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 12:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread. rename per proposal. -- User:Docu at 13:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow on discussion on Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:Or (heraldry). --Foroa (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Khojaly genocide

[edit]

Hi! I discovered this category, created by Interfase, some hours ago. As any one can see it on Khojaly Massacre or Massacre de Khodjaly for instance, calling this massacre a "genocide" is highly PoV, to say the least. I thus recategorised its files in Category:Khojaly massacre. Interfase quickly reverted me. I know him from WP:en and that discussing it with him is useless.
Any opinion on what should be done? Sardur (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This massacre also known as a genocide. You can add category Category:Khojaly massacre, but not remove this one. --Interfase (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable and specialised source knowing it as a "genocide". Sardur (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this massacre also known as a genocide. And a lot of people know it as a genocide.[1] So this category is usefull. --Interfase (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But highly PoV, which is the issue at hand. Sardur (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, still the same declaration signed by some very specific people. And still no reliable and specialised source. Sardur (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Category was already deleted, which I think was a reasonable conclusion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No-one opposed the move after seven months of open discussion.

Category:Mary I of Scotland

[edit]

She is almost universally known as "Mary, Queen of Scots", e.g. [2][3][4]

gscholar hits: 7 for "Mary I of Scotland" v. 16,300 for "Mary, Queen of Scots"

Recommend move to Category:Mary, Queen of Scots. --DrKiernan (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the Wikipedia link is Mary I of Scotland, it follows a set and established format. Gryffindor (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia article is en:Mary, Queen of Scots. DrKiernan (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Fairchild 24W

[edit]

I propose that the category be renamed to Fairchild 24, drooping the "W" that serves as an aircraft model variation identifier. There are very few differences between the "R" and "W" and seeing as there are few aircraft and media in existence this should help simplify things on the Category:Fairchild Aircraft page.--Fairchildbrad (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or create sub-categories for the variants Fairchildbrad (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Fairchild 24 Rocket000 (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:... in Spain by Autonomous Community

[edit]

This cfd pertains to the following:

I almost change these to use lowercase "autonomous community", however after seeing COM:CFD/2009/11/London_Boroughs and COM:CFD/2009/01/Category:London Boroughs where I would have incorrectly made them lowercase, I thought I'd come here instead. Since I don't know what it's supposed to be, I don't care. Most are already lowercase, but there are things like Category:Basque Autonomous Community which makes me question it. Rocket000 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in Category:Autonomous communities of Spain and Category:Categories by autonomous community of Spain, an autonomous community is a generic term like province, canton, ... (Like London boroughs is a generic term: Category:London boroughs). So your changes can be made. There is no clear rule if you should use "Basque Autonomous Community" or "Basque autonomous community"; English or German oriented people will tend to use title case (as a proper noun), in other countries they will not. Anyway, ""Basque Autonomous Community" is there and no reason to change. --Foroa (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, your question is only about the four above categories, not their subcategories. I would use lowercase for the 4 above categories. -- User:Docu at 13:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just the ones listed. Rocket000 (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say: I agree with the explanation given by Foroa for "by Autonomous Community". -- User:Docu at 20:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, why doesn't Category:Categories by London Borough use lowercase? Rocket000 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen in en:London borough, another capitalisation error.
To be consistent, I think that "Category:Railway stations by London Borough", should be "railways stations in London by borough", "categories in London by borough". --Foroa (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no opposition, I'll do the renames. I'll also do the ones Foroa mentioned. Anything that's part of a title, like "Basque Autonomous Community", I'm not sure about so I'll leave those alone. Rocket000 (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Gyms and Health Clubs

[edit]

First, this needs decapitalizing. Second, I wonder if one of the two following names wouldn't be better: either we use a short name just as on en wiki - en:Category:Health clubs - or we go with all three, en:Category:Gyms, fitness and health clubs (frankly, I am not sure what's the difference between those three, if any). Note that on en wiki fitness club redirects to health clubs, while gym does not, but it is linked to our Category:Gymnasiums (the article probably should be moved to gymnasium, and gym should become a disambig...). Anyway, comments appreciated on whether we take the gyms out of this cat, or keep it and add fitness clubs to it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend "gyms and health clubs" because they are usually facilities as opposed to fitness, which implies to me an activity. If we go with one name, either "gym" or "health club", then we should use a redirect for the other. I'm not sure about the distinction between "gyms and health clubs" and "gymnasiums" categories, perhaps these should be merged. FieldMarine (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gymnasiums" is being used in the sense of the sort of thing usually found in a school or a community center, where the facility is mainly a large room for team sports such as basketball. I do think the two are different enough to deserve separate categories. I don't think we should go with just "gyms" because of the confusion with this other type of "gymnasiums". I have no preference on whether "fitness" is added, but we should de-capitalize. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a move to suit the English Wikipedia, i.e. "Health clubs". We can disambiguate from a "gym" page. Ingolfson (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's correctly a subcategory of Category:Gymnasiums, so it doesn't make sense to name it Gyms and [whatever], when it's actually for a particular type of gym. I'd start by trying to write a description for the category to see what's in scope. Perhaps "Gymnasiums operated by companies for their customers. They may include additional health-related activities?". This would exclude gymnasiums operated by companies for their staff, community health centres etc. I'd suggest "Commercial gymnasiums, health clubs and fitness centres(sp)", but it's getting a bit long. A fitness centre is just a gym, so maybe "Commercial gyms and health clubs." ghouston (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Commercial gyms" would be sufficient. ghouston (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just happened upon this category and moved all the subcats and images before seeing just now the banner indicating this discussion. I'm really sorry, and don't know how I didn't notice it prior (I must've just acted in knee-jerk response when seeing the capital letters). Let me know if the eventual consensus here requires that I move them back. Nightscream (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That solves the first issue, at least. I added the discussion banner to the new category, Category:Gyms and health clubs, pointing to this page. ghouston (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you also created a category Category:School gyms, which is a duplicate of Category:School gymnasiums. I guess you were fooled by the title of this page into thinking it was the main Gymnasium category instead of a particular subcategory. This makes me think that Category:Commercial gyms would be the best name. ghouston (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But then, what about something like a YMCA fitness centre? Is that also in scope for this category? YMCA isn't really commercial. ghouston (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think Category:Health clubs would be best, since although the name isn't very descriptive, it matches Wikipedia and seems to be in common usage. ghouston (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this discussion and rename it to Category:Health clubs, since it's consistent with Wikipedia, nobody else has commented on the naming for almost a year, and most of the previous comments supported this option. ghouston (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Flags of Marxist-Leninist states

[edit]

I think this category should be deleted for several reasons. Currently it appears that state and national flags are not classified based on their form of government; for instance, there is no "Category:Flags of monarchies" or "Category:Flags of republics". This particular category is also problematic because it is both specific and difficult to define. First, "Marxist-Leninist" is a term that more often describes political parties, not states. Second, how does one determine what is and what is not a "Marxist-Leninist state"? Is a Marxist-Leninist state one in which any Marxist-Leninist party has been a party represented in the legislature. In a parliamentary system, is a state Marxist-Leninist if the party has formed a government or been a majority? Probably the best candidates for inclusion are states which possesses (or possessed) a constitution or some type of law in which a Marxist-Leninist party is guaranteed a position of power or made a leading national force. Even using this definition, difficulties might be encountered. Consider Poland, probably a "Marxist-Leninist state" for a time because the Polish United Workers' Party (a Marxist-Leninist party) was a leading national force in the Poland from 1948 to 1990. I already anticipate that certain users will try to remove the flag of Poland from Category:Flags of Marxist-Leninist states once it is placed there, which it should be, based on the the definition of the category on its page. Perhaps most importantly, I think this this category does not even need to exist when the information that might be obtained from it is better suited to Wikipedia.--Homo lupus (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. More than two years later, and no objections. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Province x provinces

[edit]

Unification (f.e. Provinces in Iran)

Hi, acccording to the English spelling rules, generic terms in a proper name should not be with a capital, so province with lower case is OK (In en:wikipedia, use of lower and upper case is a mess). In Iran, there is a mix of uppercase and lower case, so we can go either way. You decide, but I will oppose similar changes in other countries where the lower case is correctly and almost consistently used. --Foroa (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if this is not unified, than categorization is more dificult :O( Mircea (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ref.: Category:Provinces of Iran - unify according to en wiki and other Provinces Categories 

{{move cat|Ardabil province|Ardabil Province}}
{{move cat|Bushehr province|Bushehr Province}}
{{move cat|Chaharmahal-o-Bakhtiari province|Chaharmahal-o-Bakhtiari Province}}
{{move cat|East Azarbaijan province|East Azarbaijan Province}}
{{move cat|Fars province|Fars Province}}
{{move cat|Gilan province|Gilan Province}}
{{move cat|Golestan province|Golestan Province}}
{{move cat|Hamadan province|Hamadan Province}}
{{move cat|Hormozgan province|Hormozgan Province}}
{{move cat|Isfahan province|Isfahan Province}}
{{move cat|Kerman province|Kerman Province}}
{{move cat|Kermanshah province|Kermanshah Province}}
{{move cat|Khuzestan province|Khuzestan Province}}
{{move cat|Kordestan province|Kordestan Province}}
{{move cat|Lorestan|Lorestan Province}}
{{move cat|Markazi province|Markazi Province}}
{{move cat|Mazandaran|Mazandaran Province}}
{{move cat|Qazvin province|Qazvin Province}}
{{move cat|Razavi Khorasan province|Razavi Khorasan Province}}
{{move cat|Semnan province|Semnan Province}}
{{move cat|Sistan-o-Baluchestan province|Sistan-o-Baluchestan Bushehr Province}}
{{move cat|South Khorasan province|South Khorasan Province}}
{{move cat|Tehran province|Tehran Province}}
{{move cat|West Azarbaijan province|West Azarbaijan Bushehr Province}}
{{move cat|Yazd province|Yazd Province}}
{{move cat|Zanjan province|Zanjan Province}}
Whatever we opt for, consistency would be good, but upper- or lowercase are equally good English here. It's just a matter of whether you think of "Province" as part of the place name or "province" as a clarification. -- Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are tens of cases where there is a mix of upper/lower case: provinces, counties, cantons, prefectures, districts, regions, ... What I try to keep consistent is its use in the specific country, which seems to be reasonably the case throughout Iran. --Foroa (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The provinces of Iran do not have "Province" as part of each of their names, thus they should be lowercase. en.wp is just being silly with their titles. Rocket000 (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSING, as did on Category page and its talk page...
In accordance with the fact this discussion is now a very stale 3.5 years old, I'm calling this discussion closed,
  1. with consensus saying keep the status quo ante,
    1. en.wikipedia category names using a Capital P in Province,
    2. the commons here keeping the lower case.
  2. Imho, to untangle either site convention needs someone with BOT privileges and while an annoyance, this task would certainly be low on a priority list of such needs. // FrankB 18:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing for FrankB. The category names are consistent within Iran, and there's no particular reason to prefer upper case P. ghouston (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Animals by country & Category:Flora by country

[edit]

These two categories plus all their subcategories should be renamed to "xxx by region". They are not all countries. The problem stems from the fact political boarders make terrible divisions when talking about nature. Scientific literature, the English Wikipedia (to some extent), and species checklists are done by region. Most of the time these are countries since natural factors (like bodies of water) usually are what causes us to place a border somewhere, but sometimes they're not. Using "by country" greatly limits what categories we can use. What makes the most sense is sometimes not allowed simply because of a naming convention. Rocket000 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Category:Animals by region and Category:Flora by region already exist. Having both is over-categorization. Rocket000 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing about these categories that always puzzled me: e.g. Category:Animals by country is it meant to include "pictures of animals taken in country x" or only species categories? -- User:Docu at 07:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be treated like people categories. "Animals of xxx" refers to animals that naturally live there just like "people of xxx" (or "people from xxx") refers to their country of origin (or possibly citizenship but doesn't apply to animals), not simply where they were when someone took a picture. Even though we have giant pandas in the US (zoos), we wouldn't say they are a animal of the US, would we? So, taking that logic into account, species categories should be added to these categories, not images themselves.. yet that's not really the current practice (a lot thanks to categorization bots, though). I guess the whole system needs an overhaul. Rocket000 (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find it useful that the images in Category:Spit Island (Midway Atoll) can be found through a location category and not just by searching for "Spit Island" in various species categories. -- User:Docu at 08:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's a location category. If you're looking for images taken there, then you go to that category. It's part of a whole different tree and you're not looking for any species in particular. Anyway, that's not something I'm wishing to change with this request. Back to the topic, if I wanted to make a "Animals of Spit Island" category, it would fit in "by region" but not "by country". Rocket000 (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to decide how it's to be called if we aren't sure what is meant to be in there.
One could create a subcategory for animals in Category:Spit Island (Midway Atoll) and one has to decide if it should include images or just subcategories for species.
IMHO, Animals on Spit Island would fit well into a "by country" category.
If you want to group species categories by geographic distribution according to Wikipedia, IMHO, "Geographic distribution of animals by country/continent/region" is preferable to "Animals by x". -- User:Docu at 10:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like you're talking about maps or something and not the animals themselves. Rocket000 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "Animals of x" contains only subcategories by species (rather than "Species Y in X") that is the type of mapping that is being done. -- User:Docu at 11:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not planning on changing the contents of these categories so let's base the name on how it is now (ad likely will remain). Both images, categories, and galleries are in these categories. Rocket000 (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually I guess I have to start a new thread for that. -- User:Docu at 11:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As all subcategories of "animals by country" are in the form "animals of 'country' ", it seems logical that it should be "animals by country". The categories of Category:Animals by region seem to be mainly "by continent", so it would seem logical to name it that way too. The stray Belgian one can be moved to "Animals of Belgian". -- User:Docu at 11:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not all countries. That is the whole purpose of this request. For example, we have Category:Animals of the Mediterranean Sea, Category:Animals of Central Africa, Category:Animals of the Belgian coast, Category:Animals of the Arctic, Category:Animals of Southeast Asia, Category:Pandas in Ocean Park, Hong Kong, Category:Fauna of Asia Temperate, Category:Flora of Middle Europe, Category:Flora of West Himalaya, Category:Flora of North Ossetia-Alania... I don't understand what's wrong with "region" as it includes countries as well. It's just a more appropriate name. Rocket000 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends what you want to do, if you would use just region categories that don't include any subregions, "by region" might work better. Otherwise, I'm not sure if it's worth combining the "by country" categories with the others. Rather than using the standard "by continent" suggested earlier, "by continent or ocean" would probably work better. -- User:Docu at 23:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subregions are regions just like subcategories are categories. What about "location" or "place" or "area"... anything. "By country" is just so limiting. I've tried to work in this area but it's too hard to organize it the way it is. We shouldn't try it force a unnatural category tree just because "by country"/"by continent" is the standard. We can make a new standard that makes more sense for this topic. Also, as you noticed, bodies of water are included here too. Rocket000 (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent reset) I think that we are facing two problems here.

  • People seem to be programmed to subdivide the whole world always in political/administrative subdivisions, which are the most formal organisation known to most people. No matter how you organise things, people will always tend to create by country categories. Those subdivisions don't map very well on geographic subdivisions, for example mapping France, that has territories on 4 or 5 continents cannot be mapped correctly on continents.
  • The term "region" is one of the most wide terms here and can be anything: a couple of cities, a couple of districts or provinces, geo-regions, mountain regions, national and international, climate regions, historical regions, ... Most people have a specific region (type) in mind and seem to have problems combining them with other types of regions.

I guess that the best solution would be to further subdivide Category:Ecozones, Category:Ecoregions or maybe bioregions to contain the needed nature/animals cats in the political/administrative regions one need to compose it. Carol did a great job on that already. --Foroa (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish carol was still here. She understood the problem and tried to make it work (and it does beautifully for some botany areas, the job's just not complete on the larger scale). I'm not suggesting we mix the ecozone/biocountry ones with the political division ones. Yet, anyway. They're so similar that we can't completely separate them. I just want something broader and more flexible than country. If there's a "xxx of the Caribbean" or "xxx of East Asia" or "xxx of the Pacific Ocean", I want a place to put it. It's still using well known "man-made" divisions, unlike Caribbean Biocountry for example. "region" is the best word I can come up with, but maybe "by location" would be better, given the second point Foroa made? Or should I give up because the "by country" habit is too hard to break. That's what people want to categorize by even when it's not the most logical choice. Rocket000 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carol has been passing by a couple of days ago. Locations is even more diffuse than regions. I would prefer to continue, as in WWF en:Terrestrial ecozone, the Ecozone, Biozones, bioregions logic and naming. A bit more complex but at least much different from the others. --Foroa (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe both, region and country categories, have their advantages and should be used parallely. Of course ecoregions may be ecologically more meaningful, but also less known to the general public. Countries have man-made borders (just like the ecoregion definitions are man-made and disputable), but they are still important for fauna and flora, e.g. in the context of conservation. Print floras and faunas often are focussed on countries. Marco Schmidt (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We need a "xxx by 'geopolitical entity'" (if you think "country" is a bad term), for simple reasons like a) to parallel other "by country" categories (it is actually one of the meta-categorization schemes that work very well), b) because political borders are important for conservation biology etc and c) to interface with Wikipedia categories. But we also need a "xxx by region" category, because natural (biogeographic) borders are not identical to political borders. These two approaches can be combined/interfaced. I tried to draw up a guideline, starting at Category:Birds by region and then going down to the country categories. It should work well; I have not had major problems. Other taxa require different approaches though, and that is why the WWF ecoregions only work well for plants (they are based on phytogeography). So the regionalization should be taxon-specific; there will be enough overlap that the commoner regions and sub-regions can get separate categories (e.g. Category:Animals of Africa).
By combining a "by country" and a "by region" approach, we wil also be able to handle regions that are not officially recognized countries. These would essentially be treated the same as particular habitat types, e.g. Category:Animals of the Pantanal. Politically disputed areas can be handled in much the same way; even though Kurdistan for example is not a country at present, having both a country and a biogrographic category tree that intermesh allows to deal with Category:Birds of Kurdistan (by simply treating it as a "region").
But the first thing would be to straighten out the "animal/plant" vs "fauna/flora" problem. I can only see one way to do this - apply the English terms throughout (because the fauna/flora dichotomy is unscientific, fungi and protists and possibly bacteria cannot be handled with it). Once we have converted everything to animals/plants/fungi/protists/(bacteria) we can see how to best sort this.
A "by region only" approach is unworkable because too many categories will have 200+ items of content. It also pointlessly disregards localization information given in image descriptions, which is almost exclusively by-country or by-subdivision-of-country. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Unfortunately, while CarolSpear's attempt was nice, it didn't work and it violates category guidelines as we have them now by producing a double- or triple-redundancy between the "biocountry", "biota" and "nature" categories. Many of these categories have since been deleted of CfD'd, "nature of..." being the default main category.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well than, this is the kind of stuff we're getting, endless spam IMO.... --ELEKHHT 12:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That example is caused by a misunderstanding of how the category system works. Not all Ceratonia siliqua are, for example, from Syria, and the subject has no place in that category. They should simply be deleted, and perhaps a nicely worded note to the person making the mistake, explaining how it works, will prevent it happening in the future. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That person has been explained how the category system works a dozen times including by myself, but I see little progress. Maybe you wish to have a try yourself. --ELEKHHT 21:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NO to the term "region" which is too fuzzy. On Commons we have the better term "location" which is subcategorized (by continent, by country, by city...) which are themselves subcategorized. We should avoid the term "region" internationaly, unless it is used within specific countries which have regions as premiary or secondary administrative units, or as cultural areas without clear border; some national or international organisations also have various definitions bout what they call "regions" in their own nomenclatures: these regions MUST be scoped, otherwise they are complete non-sense !!! So I strongly object to the proposal. In fact there should be nowhere in Commons any categories named with unscoped "regions". verdy_p (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for a change. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Rivers by country by name

[edit]

This category was emptied and deleted some time ago without prior discussion by an administrator. This despite there being a series of logical subcategories.

Point 1. Metacategory
The category should be restored and populated with the corresponding subcategories. There isn't really any logical reason to delete the meta category as long as there are subcategories. Categories are, e.g.:
Please list any missing ones in the section below.


Point 2: Naming of subcategories for individual countries'
Subcategories for individual countries should be name "Rivers of <country name> by name".


Point 3. Subcategories for individual countries
Proposal 3A: Subcategories should be made for all countries with river categories
Proposal 3B: Subcategories for countries should be made once a country has subcategories by region/subnational entities. These are:
Please list any missing ones in the section below.
  • Proposal 3B part 1: existing subcategories "by name" for countries should be kept
  • Proposal 3B part 2: new subcategories should be created for all countries that have subcategories by region/subnational entity
  • Proposal 3B part 3: exisiting subcategories "by name" for countries not broken down by region should redirected to the country level.
  • Proposal 3B part 4: Administrators should maintain and expand the "by name" categories.


Point 4. Large countries
Proposal 4A: even for large countries the "by name" category should be on the country level
Proposal 4B: for large countries, the "by name" category could be created on a region/subnational entity level


Point 5: Scope of categories for specific rivers
This proposal/discussion does not address the question which type of images/files/subcategories should be included in individual river categories.


Point 6. Team work
Deletions should be discussed in advance here at "categories for discussion". Unilateral deletions hurt the project. One should avoid pasting the same arguments on multiple talk pages and seek to initiate a discussion at "categories for discussion" instead.
Please comment one the various points of the proposal below (not inline). -- User:Docu at 12:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

additional categories to which this may apply

[edit]

Please list these here, ideally noting to which point/part of the proposal they apply -- User:Docu at 12:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- User:Docu at 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "rivers by regional entity" in small and medium countries

[edit]

The majority of countries live hapily without a further categorisation of rivers per country subdivision. So there are several "rivers by country by name" categories that are sitting there for 22 months without being populated.

Commons main goal is to categorise and find images. For most countries, adding categories "rivers by province/department/... " is not helping at all making better categorisation or make the finding of river related media easier. It generates however unnecessary complication of the "river by country" categorisation scheme:

  • one main category allows for all what we need to find easily rivers and their related pictures
  • people don't have to know the country (and its subdivisions) to find and categorise river related pictures
  • So far, I have not seen a single case where country subdivision for rivers help in finding or placing river related media, to the contrary.

It is not the role of commons to show in what provinces precisely flow such and such a river: interwiki's can take care of that without any effort nor maintenance. It is frustrating in many countries how some external people create a subcategorisation system, fill in a couple of items and leave the real work for the locals that don't need it as has been demonstrated on several occasions.

So, before all, we have to ask the question if and when we will need rivers by country subdivisions as this will condition the subsequent discussions.

So, in a second case, and as a test case, I would like to see the question if we are not better of to merge in category:rivers of Italy the category:Rivers of Italy by region so that all problems are solved at once and that there is no longer a need for all sorts of extra categories and complications. Here, I would say that the Italians have to decide as such categorisation needs some detailed knowledge of the country.

This dimension of my original requests (reducing categorisation) has been neglected in the rather tendentious proposal above. I will integrate it soon if needed. --Foroa (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cats needing adaptation

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

An exemple why I like to have this type of category by country by name => Category:Rivers of the United States has many subcategories, but only a few Rivers. A parallel Category:Rivers of the United States by name generates spontaneously a list of rivers by name, having an active link. I have no meaning about the specific details asked. --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(also answer to Foroa higher up): I find geographical subdivision (provinces etc.) categories usefull. However, a disadvantage is that images often are too deep in the cat-tree. The Rivers by country by name category as a high parent category permits to jump several levels of categorisation. So one can apply there a more effective catscan or cross-catscan. In that sense I should like to have the Category:Rivers of the Netherlands split into one cat containing all subcategories not being rivers, and one cat showing only Rivers (by name). If the extra work is worth it? I don't know. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Gabriël - Een wetering bij Abcoude
Rearranging is not as simple as it looks. See also Category:Streams in the Netherlands. Translations are sometimes equivoque: Stream may be beek (ruisseau) or rivier (rivière, fleuve) or wetering (bief, canal de drainage). Even for me the dutch water categories are not always evident. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Category:Streams in the Netherlands is not a subcategory of Category:Rivers of the Netherlands. While the point you raise is important and needs to be reviewed, I prefer to limit the scope of this discussion per point 5, the answer to the other questions doesn't necessarily depend on this. -- User:Docu at 18:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metacategories "by name" are commonly used at Commons and their purposes were manytimes explained in many discussions. My opinion to those proposals:

  • Ad 1: I agree fully. It's no reason to delete this standard and useful metacategory.
  • Ad 2: I agree fully. It's in keeping with the prevalent usage and the previous Cfd discussion.
  • Ad 3: I don't agree with the variant 3A, I agree fully with the variant 3B, part 2 and subsequently part 4. The part 1 (and provisionally part 3) should be applied for countries that foundation of subcategories of rivers by region or similar subdivisions is probably expected into the future. In case of others (i. e. very small) countries, the category "rivers by name" should be deleted. The discussion how large countries should have subcategories of rivers by region (subdivisions) should be consensually finished earlier than whatever will be deleted. Creating of such subcategories is admissible even without discussion.
  • Ad 4: I agree in principle with 4A (and rarely and hardly with 4B) but I have comments. The decisive criterion shouldn't be itself the largeness of the country, but the actual and excepted quantity of files and rivers and subcategories. The most relevant criterion is whether there exist the paralel categorization branch "by region" or by other subdivisions at the propriate level. Also the character of subdivisions can be decisive: some subdivisions have traditionally and historically a character of countries, some subdivisions are only ephemeral artificial units. Countries which are historical countries or part of a today's federation should be conceived as countries.
  • Ad 5: of course. Is there some specific systematical problem? Could you give us a link to the relevant discussion eventually?
  • Ad 6: I agree and support very strongly.

--ŠJů (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An additional question. The categories "Rivers in (country)" in such cases that meta-subcategories will not be created will perform the task of "rivers by name" category essentially. Should be such categories inserted into the "Rivers by country by name" metacategory and therewithal into "Rivers by country"? --ŠJů (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


There is a growing problem with overcategorization here. We're trying to fix it with more categories. This doesn't fix the initial problem; in fact it makes it worse. The rational behind "by name" categories makes sense but only because the tree is too deep. I keep finding and more "by something" categories; "by name" or "rivers by river" etc. are the worst. Have we forgotten the what the main category system is supposed to be? It is "by name". I can't think any more logical thing to do. "by country", "by year", etc. all have a place as alternate ways to browse. For most things. However when talking about geography, "by country" or better yet, "by region" (which usually starts with continents and works down to country, city, or body of water, etc.) should be the main system we use. After you get to a specific area (depends of the amount of content we have), then you go by name. If it's so important to have to flatten the tree, then the tree has too much categorization, too much separation. Let's fix that instead. Rocket000 (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try catgraph. I think it's fairly frequent and probably bound to happen, also when combining location based categories and landforms. If you know which level you are on when starting out, it's probably less a problem. -- User:Docu at 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting indeed, see application to Val d'Aran: [5] --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To see it loop: [6] -- User:Docu at 14:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break
[edit]
@Docu: If there were 999 other rivers I would first try to subdivide into smaller regions if possible. 1 level of them. I don't think 200 or so is too much for one category. If that doesn't work, well then we would be stuck with a 1000 member category until someone comes up with a better way. Having a "by name" category would simply duplicate it. Rocket000 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, Category:Amstel would end up in Category:Water in Amsterdam and Category:Rivers of the Netherlands and fill it with, e.g. 100 others and 80 that are not rivers? -- User:Docu at 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Netherlands have a major part under the sea level and is special, why you have categories:"rivers and canals in ..." and "water in ...". The Amstel is not in Amsterdam only.
It took me 75 minutes to compile and insert (but not name tune) a complete "list by name" in category:Rivers of the Netherlands, category:Rivers of Italy, category:Lakes of Canada and category:Lakes of Canada by name. Those lists offer the advantage that one sees the missing rivers/lakes in red. A priori, those lists are complete, static (they don't invent new rivers), eliminate the need for increased complexity (multiple categories) while decreasing user mistakes and consistency errors. Missing names can be properly defined, thereby decreasing the chance on naming errors. Preparing and tuning such a list can be done in hours, taking less time and energy than this whole discussion, not to mention the gain in maintenance time. --Foroa (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did you prepare and tune the list for the Netherlands? The Canadian ones seem to be off topic. -- User:Docu at 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of lists like that. It's kinda how we do taxonomy. It provides a overview regardless of the actual category tree and we can see what we're missing. Navigation templates is one thing the Wikipedias do really well. We should look more into that instead categorizing more and more. (The only thing I would do different is hide the "Category:" part.) Rocket000 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having lists is a good thing in general. I'm not too sure that a navigation template on every category is that helpful though and it doesn't necessarily make it easier to maintain. Even if there is a link to a river from a hidden category description, the actual category you are creating might have no relation to that country. Place naming is more country specific than taxonomy. -- User:Docu at 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Rocket, back to the (virtual sample) Category:Amstel, what shall we do while Category:Water in Amsterdam fills up with 100 other rivers and 80 that are not rivers? -- User:Docu at 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Category:Rivers in Amsterdam? Rocket000 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Foroa suggested to delete regional subcategories for smaller countries and your outline seemed to support this view. -- User:Docu at 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's only one subcat, then yes. You asked what happens when it fills up with 100 other rivers and 80 that are not rivers. Also, I was more or less saying we shouldn't have "by name" categories; "(of|in) whatever" is similar but has a more natural naming system that's not (usually) redundant. Rocket000 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, in fact you are ok with Category:Amstel being in two categories, e.g. Category:Rivers in Amsterdam and Category:Rivers of the Netherlands, but you wouldn't want the second category to be named Category:Rivers of the Netherlands ''by name''. -- User:Docu at 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the edit-conflict. No, I wouldn't put it in both Category:Rivers in Amsterdam and Category:Rivers of the Netherlands since the latter's a parent category. I don't think a flatten tree is necessary here in the same way I don't think we need a "Rivers of Europe" to contain every river of Europe. It should really only contain subcategories and possibly multi-country spanning rivers. What's next "Rivers of Earth"? I question the usefulness of that. Rocket000 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So in Category:Rivers of the Netherlands you would keep combining subcategories about specific rivers with subcategories about rivers in regions? (None suggested the other option you brought up BTW) -- User:Docu at 17:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the appropriate sort key, that would make the most sense, IMHO. Rocket000 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Amstel flows besides Amsterdam too, so it has to be in a higher cat too. Anyway, most rivers flow in several provinces (an average Dutch province is 60 by 60 km: 4 times New York City, 20 % of New York metropolian area)
... you would keep combining subcategories about specific rivers with subcategories about rivers in regions? (None suggested the other option you brought up BTW) ...: that is what we proposed for rivers in Italy.
It's too early to talk about navigation templates. --Foroa (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may have to be in a higher cat, but not "too". Just put it in the most appropriate one. Rocket000 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list Foroa added is red, red, red; and what about category:Dommel and several others? fr:Projet Pays-Bas has already realises a longer list: fr:Liste des cours d'eau des Pays-Bas. Also, in Foroa's list, many red names arise. A category by country by name would be a pretty blue list of non-empty cat's. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an advantage that there are red and blue links, but we can't really be sure that we don't have categories for the red links and the blue links refer to the correct rivers.
In general, I think lists can be useful to start out with, but I'm not sure how or if they could fit into Commons categories. Thus my question how it was compiled. If it is based on Wikipedia article titles, I suppose the next step would be to ask how Commons category names should match these. If it uses CatScan at Commons for checking, the next question which CatCan function. -- User:Docu at 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am reworking/checking the Dutch list (from a nl:Lijst van rivieren in Nederland, but it is normal that there is red, red, red: only 25 % of the rivers seem to exist on commons. I guess that would be a challenging bot job for checking/refreshing through interwiki's. --Foroa (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume that we can get a comprehensive from Wikipedia (with correct spellings/no typos). For comparing it with Commons, how do you use CatScan at Commons for this? -- User:Docu at 11:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC), edited 11:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, there is no loop, and a deep catscan (going from level 3 to 6 to 9) starting with a one-level-up parent cat gives: [7] . But often cattrees and catscans are more complex. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already in your sample (for streams), it doesn't list just categories for specific streams. Thus my question. -- User:Docu at 12:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for matching purposes in hand-made rework-documents as Foroa suggests, the not river names can be deleted in your helpdocument. If there were a Category:Rivers in the Netherlands by name, a catcrosscan would serve cat-maintainance purposes. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the CatScan result has to be reworked manually, we probably didn't structure the category as it should be. -- User:Docu at 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this CFD discussion

[edit]

As shown here, this is a follow on discussion of:

It is clear that it makes no sense to have a discussion about the organisation of this type of categories before having established the real needs and alternate solutions as shown above. I suggest to discuss first the following item. The remaining points can be adressed when this is concluded. --Foroa (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary categories

[edit]

These categories are deemed unnecessary and add only complexity to the project. --Foroa (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation of lists

[edit]

Here's how I normally create lists:

  • I grab somewhere a list of the most pertinent wikipedia (in wiki format)
  • I paste it in a column in Excel
  • I do mass replacement for formatting (taking away bullets and other formatting stuff)
  • Data sorting is easy in Excel (if need be, the column can be copied in a second sorting column where for example all the words river or lake are removed)
  • For checking, I generate a category list with catscan and copy it in another column
    • for longer lists, I add or delete cells in the last column as to name align it with the first column
  • For formatting, general replaces work most of the time, but it is easy to create macro's connected with keyboard short cuts to insert a special formatting sequence, such as [[:categorie:
  • Copy and paste back on commons

Conversion tools: There are tools for converting Excel or here but I have no real experience with them. --Foroa (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad++ is great for regex search & replace, alphabetizing, vertical (column) editing and diff comparison. Rocket000 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Foroa: This can be done with Word as well, and for converting table to text I use as separation * or # which I remove from the final text; ex. Category: Lower Navarre in wikitext, with names linking to categories. Thanks yet for the wikitable format tips you gave me there. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with regex. I found Excel easier in the sense that it is easier to manipulate/pivot tables, insert columns that contain for example a pipe argument ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foroa (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring Rivers by country by name at the expense of the currently extant Rivers by name by country, which is filled with categories in country by name order. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2010/02&oldid=126269120"