Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/08

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 August 2010

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

Category:Statue of Liberty

[edit]

I would like to perform the following category renamings :

Rename Category:Statue of Liberty (talk) to Category:Statue of Liberty (New York) (0 entries moved, 120 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Replicas of Statue of Liberty to Category:Replicas of the statue of Liberty of New York (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Statue of Liberty in art to Category:Statue of Liberty of New York in art (0 entries moved, 298 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Statue of Liberty on coins to Category:Statue of Liberty of New York on coins (0 entries moved, 14 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Statue of Liberty on stamps to Category:Statue of Liberty of New York on stamps (0 entries moved, 56 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Statue of Liberty costumes to Category:Costumes after the statue of Liberty of New York (0 entries moved, 61 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

The reason is that there are many other statues of Liberty in the world, as listed in category:Statues of Freedom.

Teofilo (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support --Foroa (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is the Statue of Liberty: in the USA, of course, but around the world as well. Look at the Wikipedia links at Statue of Liberty — none of those using the Hebrew, Cyrillic, or Greek alphabets have any form of "New York" in the name, and only three using the Latin alphabet. In my mind, this shows that it's generally known as the Statue of Liberty (or a translated form) around the world, even in France and Spain that have three statues in subcategories of Category:Statues of Freedom. Let's keep this category name consistent with the name most of the world uses for it. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the world is ignorant of the existence of other statues of liberty. But is the purpose of the Wikimedia foundation to promote knowledge or ignorance ? Teofilo (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article is not a container for files, like the Wikimedia Commons category is. "Statue of Liberty" is a perfect wording for any allegory of liberty depicted in sculpture, anywhere, at any time in the world so it leaves open the possibility that people will mix all kinds of statues of liberty into that category, whereas if we use a category name with "New York", people will know that this category is not suitable for other statues. Teofilo (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See into which category File:Fedipio.jpg is being inserted now. Teofilo (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was done by an auto-categorizing bot. It's used in an article about the Statue of Liberty (which was it's inspiration but no one calls that "Statue of Liberty" too). At least it was a statue of some sort and the category wasn't something random like "Rail transport in England by county" which these bots tend to do a lot. Rocket000 (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Statue of Liberty is only one, first and most famous. Every hearing this name, at once thinks about the New York City. Other monuments having the similar names or the similar symbolics, one modelled on this idea. --Starscream (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Every hearing this name, at once thinks about the New York City. " Yes and this is a prejudice. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to help prejudices or to fight them ? Teofilo (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying we should rename Category:Abraham Lincoln because other people have same name and going with the one that's unquestionably the most associated with that combination of letters is a prejudice. (BTW, prejudice is not really the right word. Maybe predilection or bias? Americentric?) The only thing it would do is make categorization harder and more work for everyone else since no one's going think something like this would be disambiguated. Put a see also hatnote at the top if you need to but don't disambig to make a point. Usability and accessibility are more important than political correctness. Rocket000 (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]



  • the fundamental problem I do have is that for some names that exist currently in 13 places, but in practise in 20 or 30 places, augmented with various "Liberty Enlightening the World" variants, we disambiguate. I am really stunned if we have such series of categories and for one of them, we say, in our world (Western and US), we have a special rule that you have to know/guess: the category without disambiguation is the one from New York (I could live with a redirect to the New York one, but it contains already many images that are not in their right category). I can understand that for capitals with a very long history, we don't disambiguate but I think that can be the only exceptions. There is no rule in Commons that gives a priority for a name over another in case of disambiguation, and I see no reason to make exceptions on that because for each of the 700 projects Commons is serving, the priorities might change. The en:wikipedia is not necessarily the reference, because it is very much US/UK/Western world oriented (in that order) and it provides 3 million articles out of the 14 million wikipedia articles. I am moving almost daily such categories to avoid disambiguity without asking any questions (and I am spending a lot of time explaining to users why we cannot give priority to "their" item name). --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned “don't assume other users share your background” it means that the “oppose” and “support” mentioned here, is not a good representation in my opinion because just these other users do not read this. The best approach in my opinion is that as soon as the meaning of a category may be unclear for some of our users, the category should be disambiguated whatever the subject may be. Wouter (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a great disservice for the great American cause. --Foroa (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How ironic - you expose your own cultural bias while giving zero evidence of mine. I don't think there needs to be a Category:London, England any more than I think there should be a Category:Atlanta, Georgia - and I don't think we need Category:Red Square (Russia) any more than we need Category:Statue of Liberty (New York). Wknight94 talk 23:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Mentioned above, Statue of Liberty (Budapest), the second largest category after New York, actually seems to be literally called the Liberty Statue, sometimes the Freedom Statue, but not the Statue of Liberty. All of the others that are categorized as a "Statue of Liberty" are located in non-English speaking countries. They could translated in a variety of ways, but, for some reason, their native names aren't being used to categorize them here. Altairisfartalk 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Naming categories says, "The real policy with regard to proper names of individual persons, places, buildings, organizations etc. and other stable specific names of local phenomena is multifarious, full consensus isn't achieved yet. See current practices and discussion pages." Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


 Comment Can we close this? The rename proposal doesn't seem to gain any consensus. The current title seems consistent with Commons Naming Pratices. -- User:Docu at 08:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I very strongly support User:Teofilo proposal, or some variation of it.
Other people made this important point above, but those who think it is obvious that the New York City statue should have pride of place, don't seem to be responding this important point -- or even recognizing it. To non-English speakers, even those who might recognize the iconic New York city statue, the name "statue of liberty" is not obvious. They know it by the name it is known by in their mother tongues, which almost certainly won't translate as "statue of liberty". I am old enough to remember the Tien a Mien demonstrations that preceded the Tien a Mien massacre. Demonstrators dressed up to look like the statue of liberty: flowing robes, big pointy crown, upraised torch in the right hand. But, when the spoke about their appearance to western reporters, they didn't say: "I am dressed up like the 'statue of liberty'." They said, "I am dressed up like the 'goddess of democracy'." Presumably that was how "Statue of Liberty" is usually translated in China.
My experience, over at the wikipedia, with attempts by English speakers to deal with the non-English names for organizations, has made clear to me how problematic the translation of names can be. Certain organizations, through hard work, or having English language publicists, have escaped the problem of having their organizations' names randomly translated a bunch of different ways. But the vast majority of non-English names have multiple possible translations into English, and, on an International project we should be very sensitive to the flip-side of this for our users and contributors for whom English is not their first language. Let me offer some examples of some names of organizations counter-terrorism officials failed to realize were ambiguous:
  • The Uyghur captives in Guantanamo were all held in Guantanamo based on Chinese allegations that they were members of the terrorist East Turkestan Islamic Party. The troubles with this naming are that: (1) the name of this group was transliterated about a dozen different ways in the official US documents; (2) over the years the Uyghurs, an oppressed minority in China, who call their homeland "East Turkestan", face very similar problems to the Tibetans, but with no Dalai Lama. They have tried to organize dozens of liberation groups, most of which have had names that could be transliterated as "East Turkestan Islamic Party", or reasonable equivalent. These groups ranged in their belief in non-violence.
  • Khaled el-Masri who was tortured for five months in the salt pit is reported to have said on his application for German citizenship that he was a member of Zarqari's group. al Tawhid was the short form for Zarqari's group, prior to it being renamed "al Qaida in Iraq". It is also part of the name, in Arabic, of the Druze, a minority ethnic group in Lebanon, where el-Masri was immigrating from. Zarqari's group didn't even exist when el-Masri immigrated. Being part of a potentially oppressed minority ethnic group? That is something one would put on an application for asylum. Being a member of a terrorist group? This is a much less popular choice for immigration applicants.
  • A couple of dozen Guantanamo captives were held due to an alleged association with a charity called "al Wafa". Because the wikipedia is so frequently mirrored, if you google "al Wafa" now, you should find lots of links to the al Wafa charity the US put on its terrorist watchlist. But when I started the al Wafa article four years ago the only charities named "al Wafa" I could find were innocuous ones that had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
  • The story was similar for the "Afghan Support Group", or "Afghan Support Committee" -- an alleged association was used to justify holding captives in Guantanamo. I found that there were at least five different groups with names that transliterated into "Afghan Support Committee", in English. The dangerous one seems to have been the one that had originally been a CIA front, abandoned by the CIA once the Soviets were kicked out, which then found new sponsors in oil-rich Gulf. Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose both the move and the proposed choice of subcategory names if moved:
    • Against the move: I believe the statue in New York Harbor is by far the most common meaning of the Statue of Liberty as the stadium in Rome is the Colosseum. Just as there is not much chance that Category:Colosseum would get confused with Category:Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (even though it's larger) or any of the other 37 categories with the word "Coliseum" in them or 3 more categories with "Colosseum" in them, there is not much chance that the English name "Statue of Liberty" by itself refers to anything other than the statue in New York Harbor unless context shows otherwise. It looks to me like most of the other statues with a similar name are only subjective translations from other languages, and that they have been translated as "Statue of Liberty" only because that is the most common combination of "liberty" and "statue" in English, which is because of the one in New York. (How many of those other statues have officially been referred to as "Statue of Liberty"? How many are only called that on Commons because of the tendency towards English names on Commons even when no English name really exists?) Further evidence that the New York statue is the primary subject is the large amount of Commons media related to it, demonstrated by the fairly well-populated subcategories.
    • Against the proposed subcategory names: I assume those suggestions are simply examples, and not the literal names to be used. Nobody calls this statue "Liberty of New York" — that sounds like an insurance company or a car dealer or something. If they must be moved, maybe use "Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World" so at least it contains "Statue of Liberty", or maybe "American Statue of Liberty on <stamps, etc.>".
    Someone mentioned that a non-English-speaking user, trying to translate their native liberty statue names into "Statue of Liberty", may have problems. But how many times does that happen, compared to how many times a non-English-speaking user really is looking for the statue in New York when they type "Statue of Liberty"? I could be wrong, but I suspect that even non-English-speaking people searching for "Statue of Liberty" usually are trying to find the New York statue. (That being said: All the other "Liberty" statues in the world certainly should have redirects for their native names, since that would cure a vast majority of ambiguity problems and remove the necessity for subjective translation. And the name for the American statue should have redirects from as many languages as possible, especially the ones where that statue has a specific common name in that other language.) --Closeapple (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I'm closing this discussion almost a year after it was started, with the last comment posted almost two months old. There is still no consensus that there should be a move/rename. It seems that the primary English meaning of "Statue of Liberty", and the one that is searched for the most under that name, is the one in New York. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Eivissa

[edit]

This category has been renamed without consensus by multichill as you can see in Category talk:Eivissa. My last contribution in this discussion has kept there unanswered. Furthermore, I think there was nearly a consensus of keeping the former name (Six people defended it and only two claimed for category change).

Also all subcategories have been renamed without any advise.

I won't repeat my line of argument here for reverting Multichill changes as you can read them in Category talk:Eivissa.

Thanks, Paucabot (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the unfinished discussion and non-consensus renaming? Paucabot (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is a server and has to serve the wikipedias. So far, as can be seen in the IW's, the large majority of the wikipedias are referring to Category:Ibiza. If you want a transition to Eivissa, you have to start on the side of our clients. We can discuss the issue again when w:Ibiza gets renamed. --Foroa (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Commons is an independent project with its own admins and users and is able to take its own decisions. If some wikipedias have different policies, I respect it, but here we can think by ourselves. Paucabot (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that's exactly what we're doing. We're using the most commons name in English and that happens to be Ibiza and not Eivissa. Multichill (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are thinking by yourself ignoring an open discussion and moving a category without consensus. Paucabot (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did it because of a non-consensus edition of Multichill. In normal cases, I would not have made it. Multichill has not yet explained why did he do all this category movements without consensus. Paucabot (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ibiza is a case that is comparable to Rome, Brussels, Cologne, The Hague, Florence, ... It is not a matter of voting but applying the Commons naming rules. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Ibiza/Eivissa is a case exactly as Pekin/Beijing or Burma/Myanmar. And you can see the policy in Category:Beijing and Category:Myanmar. Paucabot (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the interwiki's and you will see the difference. --Foroa (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Had not we agreed in take our own decisions? Paucabot (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support to move to its original category (Eivissa). There's no complex characters avoiding an normal use of "Eivissa", as it's the real name of the place as the exemples shown by Pau Cabot. There's also Sevilla and not Seville, Granada and not Granade or Mallorca and not Majorca here in Commons. Maintaining it would be a Francoist mind. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I am sure that Hitler and Stalin would have used Ibiza too. I don't like exonyms, but we have to serve our audience. I would say, as in Mumbai, Myanmar and Beijing, if Eivissa gets around 50 % of the interwiki names, then Eivissa will be the name to use. --Foroa (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, give the good example. Rename nl:Ibiza (eiland). --Foroa (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am blocked on nl.wikipedia (as a "sock puppet" of nl:gebruiker:ErikWarmelink). Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the main account is blocked for a year because of personal attacks. We're in good company here ;-) Multichill (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't threaten your father, pseudonym. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support for Paucabot's comments. Do we use Beijing instead of Pekin? Then we should user Eivissa too.--Xtv (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Ibiza is far more used than Eivissa so we use Ibiza. That might seem unfair to some but is best for most of the users. Note we use Beijing and not 北京市 even if that might seem more correct to some users. --MGA73 (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cricket players

[edit]

Per an unanswered comment on the talk page, the descriptor "Cricket players" is inaccurate. Those who play cricket are always referred to as "Cricketers" and never as "Cricket Players". A Google comparison of the two terms is roughly 10:1 favouring the single word. For certain other sports such as football its 50:50 and for basketball it swings the other direction (10:1) supporting the status quo. Category:Australian rules footballers is uncontroversial. For precedent, refer w:Category:Cricketers.

Proposal: Category:Cricket players → Category:Cricketers (and the subcats by country/gender). Moondyne (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

w:WT:CRIC notified. Moondyne (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with a unanimous decision to move. I'll see if User:CommonsDelinker will do the dirty work. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Region of Auckland

[edit]

The 16 New Zealand regions have legal names Foo Region, rather than Region of Foo. (Local Government Act 2002) I'd like to change to Foo Region, for the correct legal title, and to align with Wikipedia. --Benchill (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's appropriate. The only reason I'm feeling a bit reluctant is that I've gotten used to the setup. But go ahead. Ingolfson (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the inconvenience. Benchill (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Foo Region is more correct. Although "Region" is technically not correct for the 4 unitary authorities (Gisborne, Tasman, Nelson, and Marlborough), I think it's best to keep our naming internally consistent. --Avenue (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming them. --Diego Grez return fire 04:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three first ones were renamed
Will do the other ones this morning, cheers. --Diego Grez return fire 04:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move, Gisborne appears to be complete also. I've added the remainder to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, for the bot to process. Benchill (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it will take some time, so I'm completing the job ;) --Diego Grez return fire 15:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of them ✓ Done! --Diego Grez return fire 03:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for processing this request. You might like to consider giving the bot a command to take care of future category moves. Benchill (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as resolved. Rocket000 (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Alter Dom Mariä Himmelfahrt (Linz)

[edit]

Wrong category name ("Mariä Himmelfahrt" is wrong), the corrected category is Category:Alter Dom (Linz). This category should be deleted. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, already deleted. --rimshottalk 15:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Photos misused as evidence of Nanjing Massacre

[edit]
Resolved

This category appears to be part of an insiduous campaign by Japanese denialists of the Nanking massacre. Most of the images are actually used in articles which present them as scenes from the Nanking massacre without qualification. By allowing this category to exist Commons is effectively making the statement that all these articles are mistaken, or worse, deliberately misleading. This is a way of making a political point without the inconvenience of having to find reliable sources as Wikipedia would demand. SpinningSpark 06:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category's name is totally unacceptable, for the reasons given above. A category name which clearly expresses an opinion on an historical event, no matter whether it is orthodox or controversialist as here, gives the impression that Wikimedia supports that view. This and any similar categories needs to be deleted as soon as possible. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the images back to the original Category: Nanjing Massacre so this category is currently empty. SpinningSpark 06:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category and moved some photos there because these photos are not related to Nanking Massacre. As a native Nanjinese, I'm surely not a denialist. You have to admit that some photos used as illustration of the massacre happened somewhere else. I suggest move these photos to a category such as War crimes commited by Japanese Army in China, but please do not move them back to category:Nanjing Massacre. --MtBell (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the situation. I'm not in a position to judge whether the photos concerned belong in the Nanjing Massacre category or not, but if you can show that they don't belong there then by all means move them to the more general *War crimes... category, or perhaps another, more specific one if the location[s] are known. Either way, the category *Photos misused as evidence of Nanjing Massacre needs deleting. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved these photos to some general categories. --MtBell (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this category per the above discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The files have been moved and the category has been deleted. --rimshottalk 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:University of Eastern Michigan faculty

[edit]

Category is misnamed, and the correctly-named category (Category:Eastern Michigan University faculty) already exists. I've moved the single image from this category to the correct one, so it is now empty. --cmadler (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment May I make a suggestion. This may benefit from a {{Category redirect|Category:Eastern Michigan University faculty}} tag instead of a delete. However thi is just a comment.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's a more appropriate outcome, I'm fine with that. I don't do much editing on Commons, more on English Wikipedia, and I know that norms for deletion versus redirect can be different. My thought was that "University of X" and "X University" are not necessarily the same (the best known US example is probably Miami University, which is in Ohio near the Miami River, and the University of Miami, which is in Miami, Florida; another example is Findlay University, which changed the name to University of Findlay to avoid the abbreviation FU), and in this case, there has never been such a thing as the University of Eastern Michigan, only Eastern Michigan University. But if the norm at Commons leans more to redirecting incorrectly-named categories rather than deleting, that's fine with me, I just thought it should be cleaned up somehow! Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • FU) Funny. To be honest, I don't know what the norms for deletion versus redirect is either. I was just thinking that (Category:University of Eastern Michigan) vs (Category:Eastern Michigan University) might be a common mistake. However, I don't know that it is. I think you should do what ever you think is best since you know more about the subject. However, I agree that the way it is now is WRONG.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete. In the U.S., FOO University and University of FOO are simply not interchangeable. Besides the aforementioned Miami case, consider University of Washington (Seattle and other locations in Washington State) and Washington University (St. Louis, Missouri), not to mention Washington State University (Pullman and other locations in Washington State). - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as resolved. Category was deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category renames for quick review - Round 1: Meta categories

[edit]

During my work with categories I come across a lot of non-standard, inconsistent, grammatically incorrect, misspelled, or wrongly capitalized names. I normally try to deal with them when I encounter them, however, a lot of the time I discover them while doing some other category maintenance task and can't be bothered to keep making rename requests or bot commands, so instead I keep a list of them to get to when I have time. Since I'm perfectly aware I'm not perfect and I'm not 100% sure on some of them, I'm going to be submitting portions, like this, of my ever-growing list occasionally for review by others before I perform the moves. I don't think any of these really need discussion, I would just a few others to quickly review them. As I don't think any of these are controversial, I'll probably only wait a week or so (unless arguments are raised). Of course, you're welcome to make any of the moves yourself. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plural to singular

[edit]

Spelling errors

[edit]

Incorrect capitalization

[edit]

Awkward and poorly formed

[edit]

- Rocket000 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Rocket000 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Burley Wharfdale railway station

[edit]

Reasons for discussion request -- Wrong spelling for station name. Category created with correct spelling (Burley in Wharfedale railway station) and images moved. Next time I'll request a category move. Scillystuff (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, misspelled. --rimshottalk 14:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Company Gardens

[edit]

Should be moved to Category:Company's Garden, as that is the usual way of writing the name; see e.g. [2][3]. --Htonl (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good idea. A quick search over books in archive.org confirms that "Company's Gardens" is the more common spelling. I origionally create the category using the spelling from the en article name, but I see you have already moved that article to the new name. --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, moved to Category:Company's Garden, as this seems to be the official name. --rimshottalk 14:01, 14 August 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:SVG_Location_maps_categories

[edit]

Redundant with Category:Location maps by country. (I'm not sure why "SVG" is in the title, none of the subcategories are SVG-specific.) Rocket000 (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is a need for SVG maps.
However I agree, all the files and subcategories need to be SVG specific. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.244.98.245 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but this category is not it. Rocket000 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete nuke it. Multichill (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Move to Category:Location maps by country where they belong. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Location maps by country Only waiting for Delinker to delete. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:ARD-Rose

[edit]

typo (correct is Category:ADR-Rose) --Anna reg (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 30 August 2010 by Foroa (talk · contribs). AusTerrapin (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Documents from the Den of Espionage

[edit]

This is a pejorative title, it ought to be Category:Documents from the U.S. Embassy, Tehran per en:U.S. Embassy, Tehran. --Benchill (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benchill is right, category should be moved to Category:Documents from the U.S. Embassy, Tehran. --High Contrast (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --rimshottalk 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:2006, stamps on envelores

[edit]

"Envelores" is not an English word. Could be a typo for "envelopes", except none of these are visibly on envelopes. Subcat of Category:Stamps of Moldova, 2006, Category:Stamps of Moldova, so apparently the intent is something specific to Moldova. I have no idea whether there is a valid category here, but clearly if there is it is misnamed. -- Jmabel ! talk 07:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the whole Category:Stamps of Moldova tree is seen as a traditional file directory system and a mess, for example none of the categories in Category:Stamps of Moldova, 2006 have an acceptable name. --Foroa (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, these are envelopes with stamps printed on them. Stamps on envelopes doesn't quite cover that, of course, much less envelores. The proper name for this kind of thing is postal stationery. We have a category for that. I would propose the following categories:
Category:2006, stamps on envelores would be renamed to Category:Postal stationery of Moldova, 2006. 2002, postal stamps and so on can be upmerged to Stamps of Moldova, 2002. The information that these stamps are "according to" this or the other catalog should be on the description page. I'm not quite sure what "according to" is supposed to mean in this context. Were they scanned from the catalog or were they verified to be genuine, with the help of the catalog? --rimshottalk 13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Postal stationery", assuming it is factually correct, sounds good to me. I've circled back once more (this time in Romanian) to the person who created this category, hoping he/she will weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any issue with putting the year first instead of last in the category? E.g. 2006 stamps of Moldova, following the parent Category:2006 stamps. BrokenSphere (Talk) 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date is a qualifier, not a topic as such. If we start categorising like that, the real date related categories will be overwhelmed by those types of categories. --Foroa (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed as discussed --moogsi (blah) 21:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Thai Airways

[edit]

Title is ambiguous per en:Thai Airways, it ought to be Category:Thai Airways International per the en Wikipedia article name. --Benchill (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support A {{move}} request might be more efficient for such obvious cases. --Foroa (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed since it has already been turned into a disambiguation. ghouston (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Road signs by shape

[edit]

Should we use this category or just direct users to Category:Signs by shape? Personally, I think we should provide a way to search road signs by shape, but this could also be done by using "Signs by shape" together with some of the other subcategories of "road signs". -- Docu  at 20:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, it is reasonable and relevant to have such special subcategory in the category Signs by shape. There exist no many used shapes and very many road signs using them. --ŠJů (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for me. How shall we structure the subcategories? In some countries, some categories of signs have generally a specific shape (e.g. warning signs, prohibitory signs, etc.), but I think it's generally preferable to make all categories for specific signs with a defined form direct subcategories of the one of a shape (e.g. Category:Red octagonal stop signs would be a subcategory of "Octagonal signs"). This avoids tendency to find subcategories with signs of a different form. -- Docu 

If a whole subcategory from some country contains signs of identical shape, it can be en bloc categorized by shape, e. g.
If the group isn't homogenic (like this one], it will not be categorized by shape en bloc, but it can have subcategories by shape (a square on its side, a square on the top, a rectangle) or in some similar way. Paralelly, signs can be categorized by meaning, e. g.:
As we can see, category branches are interlacing on every level so much as possible. There's no need to invent some rigid scheme, every country have some local specifics of grouping and shapes. It is sufficient to respect general rules of categorization (to avoid useless overcategorization) but i see no special problem on this theme. If we will do so, the ideal grouping and structure should happen with time "of itself". Shapes are very simple criterion.
I think, there exist more complicated problems, e. g. that "mandatory" or "prohibitory" or "operational" signs etc. are defined in every country a bit different - not only worldwide but even within Geneva and Vienna conventions area. For example Slovakia moved signs of traffic lanes from "informational" signs to "mandatory" signs in 2009. It is random whether e. g. "Stop at customs" is clasified as a prohibitory sign or as a mandatory one. --ŠJů (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with your scheme when it includes "round" in the intermediary categories, but if the category name doesn't include that, it tends to get problematic.
I'm aware of the added problems with terms like "prohibitory" and signs like "Stop at customs" that might mean "slow down, but don't necessarily stop", but let's try to get simpler things sorted out first. BTW, I have a personal preference for signs that aren't identical everywhere.  Docu  at 20:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the category will not contain an explicite shape definition, we can somethink presume only if such category contains a complete set of diagrams. (But even in such cases situation can become difficult because of some historic signs or a photo of some unstandardized sign like this warning sign can occure.) It depends whether such exception remain be a rarity or become to be more remarkable. As I said, we needn't to invent some scheme, it is sufficient to use standard common rules of categorization and standard maintenance. I agree that we would first try to assemble and group signs by kind and meaning. Many diagrams are not categorized by meaning yet, many countries haven't uploaded a complete set of diagrams, many meanings of signs have not their own specific category etc. --ŠJů (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you probably described quite well the point at which the subcategories without an explicit shape definition become problematic. As currently it's a bit hard to find anything, I rather outline this in advance to avoid that this becomes an issue later. There is nothing really being invented, but we still need to have some sort of category description to go by. This will make standard maintenance easier.  Docu  at 04:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also support retention of the category. As there has been no further discussion recently, and because there is no consensus to deleted this, I have also removed the tag on the original category. Ingolfson (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as per Ingolfson. ghouston (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

All those 5 newly created categories contained only one image (in the first one) still - File:Čížová, pamětní deska včelařského spolku.JPG.

1) Recently several categories "Memorial plaques..." was deleted or redirected to "Plaques..." because the main category Category:Plaques is described as intended for "memorial signs", i. e. the adjective "memorial" is uselessly tautologic and tempting to duplicities. (Also Category:Memorial plaques in the Czech Republic is requested to merge with Category:Plaques in the Czech Republic now.)

2) It is question whether is reasonable to create so particular combined categories. Isn't inadequate to create categories combining more criteria (geographical, language and type of object) on so low level (district) and for so few files? Is it reasonable to anticipate that the existing content will be methodically assorted by somebody in this way?

3) Now, the category Category:Plaques has no subcategories "by language" and the category Category:Plaques in the Czech Republic is geographicaly divided by region only. Isn't categorization "by language" duplicite to categorization "by country" for plaques which use only the local official language? Is it a good impulse for mass creation and filling of such categories? --ŠJů (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See related discussion Category talk:Plaques that we should probably integrate in the discussion on Category:Memorial tablets
1) A quick first part of a reply. We removed the "memorial plaques by country" structure, although in principe this could be a more precise subcategory of plaques. Problem is that the majority of the current contents in plaques are en:Commemorative plaques and even memorial plaques (event related). There are a smaller number of plaques that are more informational, in the sense "Napoleon lived here", this is such or such famous building, classified historical building, maintained by the city, designed by xxx .... So, with the volumes we do have and the categorisation style here, it might make more sense to say that by default, all plaques are memorial plaques, and a subcategory splits up the informational or non memorial plaques.
2) It is often a mistake to assume that the natural "geographic" subcategorisation has to be reflected on all side categories: this brings no added value in finding things, to the contrary. It is often used only to keep the volume of a certain category to something manageable.
3)For the rest, I have to think and look around, but for each "side-"categorisation on Commons, two basic questions have to be asked: does the category add significant value (will it be really used and helpful to find something) and is it natural to categorise in it (in other words, will those categories be maintained or stay empty as most "by name" categories). --Foroa (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ad 3) See as example Category:Inscriptions in the Czech Republic by language. It is interesting to segregate foreign-language inscriptions in some country to special subcategories. But a filling of the category Category:Czech inscriptions in the Czech Republic seems to be unwieldy. Plaques are similar in this view. It is useful to separate German, Russian, Latin, Italian etc. plaques in the Czech Republic. But because most of plaques in the Czech Republic are in Czech language, such subcategory by language would be unmanageable and a bitt useles. --ŠJů (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3) Agree. All plaques are by default in the national language. And frankly, even in Belgium with its 3 official + English languages, I don't feel a need to make separate subcats for it. --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Memorial tablets

[edit]

There seems to be an agreement (=no protest) with ... to move here all the contents from Category:Memorial tablets (and subcats) to related Category:Plaques (and subcats). --Foroa (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, there is no separate Memorial plaques category, for now. ghouston (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church- evangelic (Karlovy Vary)

[edit]

delete. Evangelich churches has no dedication. And for buildings we are using the name of the more recent use. So this would be Evangelic church in Karlovy Vary, if there is just one envangelic church in the city. --Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(A moving to Category:Protestant church of Saints Peter and Paul in Karlovy Vary was requested even before this deletion request.)

 Keep, consider the rename request preceding this delete request. The church really exists and is remarkable, then deletion request cannot be considered as serious. The most used name is:

When we try evangelický kostel karlovy vary in Google, every relevant finding contains also names of patron saints "Petra a Pavla". As we can read from the history of this church, it was built in 1852 by Lutheran countess Schaumburg-Lippe as an oratory for all non-Catholic spa guests. Thus, the church never was Catholic but ever had its dedication - formerly as Lutheran only to St Peter, since 1946 Czechoslovak Church extended the patrocinium to St Paul. Then Juan's deduction is surely based on some fatal mistake.

I requested a word "protestant" instead "evangelic" or "Hussite" because the church is known as "evangelic" but used by Czechoslovak Hussite Church, not by Evangelic Church of Czech Brethern. --ŠJů (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, since it has already been renamed. ghouston (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Studentenverbindungen

[edit]

The term Studentenverbindungen is a term of art referring to student fraternities in German-speaking communities. However, I notice that some categories have been created using the term "Student fraternities in ..." instead. Note that the English Wikipedia article states that Studentenverbindungen are similar but not identical to American college fraternities, so some confusion might be caused if we call them "student fraternities". Should we retain the term Studentenverbindungen, or translate it to "Student fraternities" in line with "Commons:Language policy"? I am fine either way, so long as we use either the German term or its English translation consistently. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the German term! Studentenverbindungen are considerably different from American fraternities. The English Wikipedia and many others use the German term to name the corresponding articles: en:Studentenverbindung, es:Studentenverbindung. See also similar subjects, like en:Burschenschaft, etc. --ALE! ¿…? 09:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better stick with the German word, it is really different from American student fraternities. Nageh (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for keeping the German term, which indeed defines a historic and current association and type of student's organisation which has significant differences from what would be a fraternity in the US, or the UK equivalents. They can be a subcategory under the broader term of student organizations. Ingolfson (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think we have consensus that the German term should be retained as it has a specific meaning that is not properly captured by any English term. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The categories in question such as "Category:Student fraternities in St. Gallen" have been renamed in the format "Category:Studentenverbindungen in St. Gallen". Thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion. I think it can now be closed by an administrator. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether German or English versions of place names should be used

[edit]

A related issue is whether German or English versions of place names should be used, for places with well-established English names:

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no problem with this. --ALE! ¿…? 12:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, do you mean that you think it is all right to rename the categories so that the English versions of the city names are used? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but please put category redirects, e.g. in Category:Studentenverbindungen in München put {{Category redirect|Studentenverbindungen in Munich}}. --ALE! ¿…? 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that will be done automatically once the categories are renamed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - for consistency, the English-style names (Munich, instead of Muenchen) should be used. Ingolfson (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny: first part of the cat name in German, second in English. With that logic, a lot of cats will need renaming. 498 in Köln to start with --Foroa (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Da gibt es sicher einiges nettes in Germish wie:
„English: This is the category for Hannover, capital of Lower Saxony, Germany. Hanover is the English spelling of the city's name.“
Finde ich zumindest auch auch ganz selbstbewusst.--Kresspahl (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an existing policy on the use of non-English place names? In other words, are commonly used English names for places to be preferred over the place names in their original languages? Does the language policy apply here? Anyway, we should not have two categories like "Category:Köln" and "Category:Cologne" existing at the same time, as this just splits up related files. (Or, we end up with two categories with identical files, which is a little strange.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we should not have "koeln", we should take our lead from the English Wikipedia in these matters. In the long run, capability for multi-lingual cat names will eventually happen (however, this is trickier done than said, which is why it still hasn't occured). Ingolfson (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, consensus was to keep the German name. ghouston (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:AOMC

[edit]

I found a new type of flat meta category. It says "AOMC means ALL Old Maps Categories". It uses the word "all" like suggested before, but that wasn't seen as being all that clear, thus I didn't simply rename this to "Category:All categories of old maps". The category is populated by a template so it will be easy to rename it. Rocket000 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No support for move, and it's a hidden tracking category. No action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:28, 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:Months by country

[edit]

To recycle Martin H's words: A new brainless meta categorization system for the purpose of collecting unrelated categories in one category with no informational value. Occupational therapy and overdoing Commons with unecessary category mess. Multichill (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil.  Docu  at 04:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having tolied a lot in the date related categories, I feel that this meta category (and all the related subcats) is neither brainless, nor useless. I think its a good overlay bringing together disparate categories or files. Evrik (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To recycle someone else's words: "Come on, what's the point of these categories?" Seriously, I really don't understand how this is useful categorization. I'm ok with seasons by country, maybe even months by country (that's pushing it), but month and year by country? Why? To bring together "disparate categories or files"? That could mean anything—"a grouping of unrelated files". Categories are meant to separate disparate (synonym: separate) categories or files, right? Rocket000 (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone point me to an example where these categories are deemed really useful ? --Foroa (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but consideration should be made to making these hidden categories, like user categories. One example of usefulness - I went to Eritrea in October/November 2008, and would be interested to know if anyone else on the tour has also uploaded photos. A quick check of Category:October 2008 in Eritrea and Category:November 2008 in Eritrea shows that I'm the only one (or if there are others they're not in this cat). It's a category that's more useful to the uploader than the casual browser, which is why I suggest using hiddencat. Tivedshambo (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The categories Category:October 2008 in Eritrea etc are not for discussion. For discussion is Category:October in Eritrea respectively Category:Eritrea in October (the category mess wasnt even consistent in its naming) as a parent category collecting categories of content created in or about eritrea in October of random years to build a connection with the topic category October. --Martin H. (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I took the nomination to include all subcategories, down to the [month] [year] in [country] level. Tivedshambo (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he nominated just Category:Months by country.  Docu  at 10:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the meta categry system of months by country, including of course what the name says: months by country categories, thats MonthX in CountryX. I illustrated it in File:Month by country CfD.png. --Martin H. (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tivedshambo didn't seem to see it that way either and the nomination just mentions "in one category". Besides, only one category is tagged with {{Cfd}} and the image you mention was created just now.  Docu  at 02:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was created right now, it only reflects your list of the meta categorization system at COM:UNDEL#Country by month categories with an example of one of the unecessary categories beeing recreated. --Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent reset)Special:Contributions/Saviour1981 keep coming back. --Foroa (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thats not what this is about. The last category in your contribs link created is Category:December 2010 by country, we not talk about that category (which is an appropriate "by topic" category for Category:December 2010) but we talk about either Category:December by country or Category:Countries in December or so which collects all Category:December 2010 by country & Category:December 2009 by country & 2008 ... in one category. Thats unecessary meta categorization and irrelevant "by topic" categorization for the topic Category:December as well as unecessary duplication of all photographic content into the topic category tree Category:Months. --Martin H. (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Multichill.--Avron (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please change all the names in the standard form "Name of country by month" or delete all these categories! Thank you! --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Former players of Real Madrid CF

[edit]

Is there really a need to distinguish players who used to play for Real Madrid vs. who is on the current squad? This category seems extraenous. --BrokenSphere (Talk) 04:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:57, 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:Zeichen 206

[edit]

This should be renamed to something else. -- Docu  at 13:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What name do you suggest? This name is chosen according to other subcats of Category:Road signs in Germany. --MB-one (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure. Maybe "Zeichen 206 (road sign in Germany)"?  Docu  at 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the cfd tag to all other categories with names in the form "Zeichen nnn". BTW all but two of them were created by you.  Docu  at 15:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to use the name of signs rather than only the number of signs. What about to let's inspire with filenames like File:CZ-IS12b Konec obce.jpg? Country, number and name (meaning) should be specified. Btw., what is more stable and long-time: a numbering or a meaning and shape of signs? --ŠJů (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK to have signs categorised according to their native designation, but they should also be categorised within Category:Road signs by kind to enable users of other languages to find them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, this is the official classification, the only "other part" of the official classification being in German, thus adding that as more text to the category doesn't help the general user - while using English ad-hoc translations of the German remainder of the full name is also not ideal. Therefore I think that a "Zeichen XXX" category is not the worst idea - but maybe a "Road signs of Germany, Zeichen XXX" category would be best? Ingolfson (talk)
Apparently I didn't explain myself sufficiently. I was not suggesting to add any more descriptive text to the category name, but that road signs should not only be categorised by the native designation number (as has happened at Verkehrsschild (D) - Achtung! unebener Plattenbelag Frotschäden.JPG), but also by existing descriptive categories, e.g. from Category:Road signs by kind.
Using a naming scheme "Road signs of Germany, Zeichen XXX" seems sensible to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A category name isn't a category scheme. A category name should be suitable pregnant and unequivocal but shouldn't contain all parent-category names. --ŠJů (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the word "Zeichen" (= a sign) isn't an inseparable and untranslatable part of the "official name" or number of individual signs but it is only a common word and a common way of sign numbering (see e. g. de:Bildtafel der Verkehrszeichen in Deutschland). Whatever kind of signs can be numbered such way, not only traffic signs - there are many other topics where are used signs which can be numbered.
The proposed schema "Road signs of Germany, Zeichen XXX" don't conform to standard syntax of category names. A dissambiguation should be rather on the bottom of the category name, if it is necessary. But also a parallel use of the German word "Zeichen" and an English word "signs" is redundant. Is it some relevant reason to not translate "Zeichen" by the English word "sign"? What about Category:Traffic sign 206 (Germany) or Category:Traffic sign 206 of Germany? (I'm not sure if singular or plural is more suitable for multiple use of one sign symbol.) (also a term "road sign" can be used instead of "traffic sign")
Lastly, I'm repeating my question: what is more stable and long-time (and pregnant): a numbering or a meaning and shape of signs? --ŠJů (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some time after writing the above, the same thought about redundant category naming occurred to me; after all, the categories "Zeichen xxx" are already part of the Category:Road signs in Germany, so there is no need to repeat that term. I'm not sure the category name "Zeichen xxx" needs to be renamed at all. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"What is more stable?" IMO a system that uses the official German numbering. (I'm not sure what you mean by "pregnant".) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First: It is a goal, to categorise all "Zeichen XXX" cats in the specific subcats of Road signs by kind. 2. The numbering is clear without ambiguity, but I must admit that "Zeichen" isn't. So, what about "German road sign XXX" or "German traffic sign XXX"? --MB-one (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: In some countries, the system of traffic sings itself (shapes and meanings of signs) is developing and changing gently and continuously but the numbering is time after time changed with one whack. It can be told that almost every new editon of an enactment comes with a new numbering. In my country (Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic), I experienced no less than 4 different numberings (1967, 1975, 1990, 2001). I suppose, DDR had also different numbering than BRD. Also Slovakian have a problem that their sign diagram files are named only by numbers - and in 2009 were nearly all signs renumbered. --ŠJů (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: You are right that the categories "Zeichen xxx" are already part of the Category:Road signs in Germany. But wiki categorization isn't only hierarchic. It isn't possible to have one category "Zeichen xxx" ine the category Category:Road signs in Germany and other different category "Zeichen xxx" in an other theme. That's why every category name should be appropriately apposite and presentive also out of context of its parent category, when it is used by HotCat or within fulltext search results etc. --ŠJů (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar categorization system with Category:MUTCD categories.

  • To some extent, this includes a geographic scope, as does "Zeichen nnn"
  • These categories are used somewhat inconsistently (more in some fields than in others. Personally I tried to fill Category:W14-1 - Dead End and Category:W14-2 - No Outlet.
  • Their names are a bit more descriptive
  • Some signs might seem to look like just like the one described in the standard, but - due to a slightly variation - they don't belong there.
  • For, e.g. Category:Red octagonal stop signs, it seems just as important to categorized these by the language of the text they include than by the MUTCD category.

In any case, I think we should try to provide several alternative ways to categorize road signs, e.g. (form, color, meaning, content, location, standard). Given the complexity of the current system, maybe we should try to avoid placing too many intermediate levels between the images and avoiding to combining too many approaches (e.g. mix "by location" with every other one). Possibly, at least one category on the images should be as descriptive as Category:Red octagonal stop signs. ---  Docu  at 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody doubt that road signs should be categorized both by local standard (e. g. MUTCD for US, local numberings or names for other countries) and by general meaning (Road signs by kind). But there exist several questions. How category names should be used on the country level (to be not confusable with a general or a different meaning) and how the main general categories should be structured (whehter by European (Geneva) way or rather by US MUTCD way etc.). History and conception of road signing is a bit different. Categorization by colours, shapes etc. is an other view. It is routine that the categorization combines more criteria which are mutually more or less depending or independent. A problem of a single numbering also is that in some countries the numbers are not perpetual but only single-used in one enactment. Can we suppose that Germany will not renumber the signs? Such renumbering is quite often and in many countries. --ŠJů (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The German numbering system is part of their legislation (StVO) which was originally enacted in 1934; the most recent change to that legislation in September 2009 introduced some new signs and deprecated (until 2019) some others. Without disrespect to other countries, I think we can assume that the Germans will administer their legal system in a consistent and efficient manner; they have so far.
As to the actual naming proposal: Category:Traffic sign 206 of Germany (as proposed above) seems inconsistent with the fact that: a) Category:Traffic sign does not exist; and b) Category:Traffic signs points to Category:Road signs. Applying the naming conventions in Category:Road signs in Germany, it seems that Category:Zeichen 206 road signs in Germany would be a sensible name. Additionally, as Docu has pointed out, a new parent category, analogous to Category:MUTCD categories, for all these "Zeichen" categories might be useful, maybe named Category:StVO categories in the category Category:Road signs by standard. Then again, I still think that doing nothing is also a viable option at this point. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "traffic signs" and "road signs" are used alternatively on Commons on different levels and countries. The first one have a disadvantage that can be confusable with signs for other traffic (rail traffic, or a traffic other than a transportation). The second one is often confused with "road number signs" which are on Commons mostly called "Route signs". The article on the English Wikipedia has a name en:Traffic sign. Category:Zeichen 206 road signs in Germany is perhaps the least acceptable pattern of the all disscused, it breaks all common language and syntactic standards: it needlessly repeats a synonym in two languages and also the de facto dissambiguation without brackets is strange. The word "Zeichen" isn't a part of the code but a common word; what about to rename Category:Railway line 170 (Czech Republic) to Category:Trať 170 railway lines in the Czech Republic, or Category:St. Vitus Cathedral to Category:Katedrála svatého Víta churches in the Czech Republic? It would be a nonsense.
I believe that German legal system is administered in a consistent and efficient manner. But this fact doesn't need to mean that numbers of paragraphs or illustrative images will never change. Really didn't the numbering change since 1934? Unbelievable! Have you a link to the version StVO from 1934? Number of sign types increased surely manifold. If the authors of enactment from 1934 thought so far ahead that the original numbers never did have to be changed, then hats off, congratulatings! The first 6 Czechoslovakian signs from 1935 wasn't numbered; images of sings from 1938 was numbered by a single succession from 1 till 12 (some with variants a, b, c...), without a reserve for potential future signs. Just as illustrative images in every other enactment. Also the national flag or coat of arms are hardly somewhere called the image number from the constitution :-)
Category:Road signs by standard is a bitt needless and unclear category. Every country has its own standard, then "by country" category is herewith "by standard" category. Every standard has its own structure, although perpetual number codes are not always its essence. Btw., really StVo calls its images and sign numbers "categories"? I think, "Zeichen" don't means "category".--ŠJů (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, I was just trying to extrapolate from the existing categories in Category:Road signs in Germany and its parent categories. Which name do you suggest? Still Category:Traffic sign 206 (Germany) or Category:Traffic sign 206 of Germany as you wrote above?
I was drawn into this discussion only by accident, and I don't care much about whether the existing name is kept or any of the proposed other names is used. I'm sure you (ŠJů) or the creator of the category (MB-one), or the proponent of the extraordinarily vague renaming proposal (Docu) have more expertise in this matter than I have. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, my expertise in the matter, doesn't go far beyond the fact that, I'm from Germany. And, as I know, the numbering system of the StVO is a primary key for every officially existing sign. Therefore, the number should be a part of the category name and a description would be redundant. --MB-one (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then, Category:Road sign 206 (Germany) would be optimal. I'm not fundamentally against the German word "Zeichen", but there can occur many kinds of numbered signs (Zeichen) in every of German-language countries. Btw, Austrian road signs are also called "Zeichen" and are also numbered.
As regards "primary key", we can only wish that the German numbering never will be changed and will remain forever and ever. What a foolish hope.
Besides, the past is given. I found the original StVO (RGBl.I, Nr.59, S. 457) from 1934 which don't contain signs but whose § 28 Abt. 5 mentions some "Ausführungsanweisung". But I can't find this executing ordinance (this?). It seems that signs from 1934 (see also here) haven't numbers as a primary key, even no numbers, even not the nowadays numbers. Do you want to place such signs also into categories like "Zeichen 206"? Are you sure that the numbering system was never changed - although StVO was several times replaced with quite new one? Are you sure that StVO didn't use some different numbering in the past? When originated the nowadays numbering? And how we should categorize images of signs which are older than the new numbers? --ŠJů (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To bring this to an end: Category:Road sign 206 (Germany) would work perfect for me. --MB-one (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok for me. Category:Verkehrzeichen 206 or Category:Verkehrzeichen 206 (Germany) might work too.  Docu  at 12:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid "Verkehrzeichen" is not a German word; "Verkehrszeichen" is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, see also a proposed guideline Commons:Naming categories#Principles, especially Universality principle and Selectivity principle. There is (among others) postulated that translations in other languages or language variants are not an acceptable way to specify subdivisions of the main subject and that categories should have preferably unambiguous names. I think, we should apply these guides here. (In contrast to proper names and nearly-proper names where original names are often a better choose.) --ŠJů (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever name is chosen, I think all "Zeichen nnn" subcategories should go into a parent category that clearly indicates where this numbering comes from (let's call that "Zeichen by ASDF standard" for now). "Road signs of Germany" seems too generic for that. Even if "Zeichen by ASDF standard" would also be a subcategory of "Road signs of Germany", it would be primarily one of "Road signs by standard", as the primary criterion is the standard's numbering, not the location.  Docu  at 04:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such category shouldn't appertain only to one parent category. Every such category can be categorized also by meaning, by shape, colors and used graphic elements, by period etc. The category name "Zeichen 206" appears weirdly and is deficiently predicative when we see it in the category Category:Red octagonal stop signs. Every country has its own Zeichen (= signs). The word "Zeichen" isn't a specification of German signs but only a German word for signs of every type and from all countries. --ŠJů (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say „The word "Zeichen" isn't a specification of German signs“, but thats wrong. The official names of all signs is Zeichen n. It is true, that Zeichen has the meaning of signs outside the StVO, too. I see not, that we must have to translate official names. Even painted lines or arrows are "Zeichen nnn". So reducing the category to "signs" breaches the fulfilment of all "Zeichen" at the StVO. (An line in the middle of the road isn't a sign, but it is a "Zeichen".) So: don't renaming (if you want to add some words, this may be yours). --Quedel (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:26, 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:Buildings by date of destruction

[edit]

The subcategories below this parent category are, for example, in the format Category:Destroyed in 1889. I would suggest that all the subcategories in the format of, for example, Category:Buildings destroyed in 1889. The same would be true for the 'Buildings in country' subcategories etc. --JD554 (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

We normally name categories after the subject of their contents, not the contents itself. In the case of this category, there's no reason to put "images" in the title. We could basically call all our categories "xxx-related images". Everything in this category should be recategorized into an appropriate subcategory of Category:Vincent van Gogh (images of the man himself may go directly into the category). Also, his full name should be used and "Images" shouldn't be capitalized. --Rocket000 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a red category with 1 member: Category:Portraits of Vincent van Gogh. I create that and added it into this category.
I agree that Category:Van Gogh-related Images should be merged into Category:Vincent van Gogh as that category is for any images related to VvG. -- Docu  at 12:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't await a flood of audio- and video-files related to van Gogh, we have no reason to keep a special subcategory of images, because images are generally the prevalent (default) type of files on Commons. --ŠJů (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a "merge from" request in the parent category. That needs to be reorganised before merging. --Foroa (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2010/08&oldid=184862864"