Tagged with {{Empty page}}, so an admin will probably delete soon. @Robby: For future reference, categories like this can be tagged with the empty page template without being brought here for discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Themightyquill, this is the title, a German "Ingredients fur trader" told me, when I asked him for his English occupational title.
His job is to sell things, furriers need to make furs: fabrics for fur coat linings, buttons etc. and furrier's knives, scissors, fur related chemical products and such things.
Yes, I think either "supplies" or "materials" makes more sense than ingredients in English. Otherwise, I'm not sure, because I'm not an expert. I believe "fur industry" tends to refer to those raising animals for fur. "Fur trade" can refer to many things, but in a North American context, I think it has a connotation related to the trade in furs between hunters and companies, and especially a historic context. Furriers are people whose trade is fur, so I guess they are in the "fur trade" by a slightly different meaning. But perhaps "Furrier supplies" or "Furrier materials" would be the clearest? "Fur industry supplies" would include cages, and "Fur trade supplies" might include muskets. =) I'd be happy to hear other thoughts on this before making any moves though. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All categories related to the Czech regions and districts use a name without "the" article, only 6 categories of maps by region deviate from the system. I don't know which version is more correct by standard English grammar but I'm sure that the naming system should be as unified as possible. ŠJů (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If "Region" is capitalized, it's the name of the region, and there's no need for "the". Rename as ŠJů has suggested to match the rest of the category tree and delete the old ones. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 6 categories were moved now to the standard format. The old categories are redirected (can be deleted) and this Cfd can be closed. --ŠJů (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the proper name for this museum is Museum of Folk Architecture and Life, Uzhhorod - which is the name of the related article on WP. Can we consider renaming this category to match the WP article? Open air museum in Uzhhorod is a bit vague Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gender is a very different thing from sex and incorrect for these biological categories. See en:Sex and gender distinction for more on the topic. This proposal concerns all subcategories. --Pitke
I appreciate motivation of the suggestion but I'm not sure it applies. According to en:Gender, "In other contexts, including some areas of social sciences, gender includes sex or replaces it. For instance, in non-human animal research, gender is commonly used to refer to the biological sex of the animals." That said, if people are on board with the move, I won't oppose. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message; I, too and also agree to a shorter name; my problem is the confusing titles or names in the markers or lack of markers; this University is so big too large so encompassing; so, this Obelisk is for one, for PUP but the statue of Apolinario Mabini is Central thereat; the Main building and Freedom Plaza has no exact boundaries and I wanted to include the main gate passageway or main street including the Arch of the Lagoons which I did not shoot due to Bad weather, I waited and waited and I do not like to shoot if there is poor sun; at any rate, I separated the Interfaith Chapel and Mabini Shrine was into 2 categories, or 3, the statue, the new museum and the Old house in its 3rd tranfer hereat just 10 per center thereof preserved all are remakes, sincerely -Judgefloro 15:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC) (talk)
Comment Doesn't that depend on whether the spices in question are from (of) Turkey, or have been imported and are just in Turkey? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see this. The user who moved the cat gave their OK to revert things. I'm therefore closing this discussion (although have no idea whether I'm "experienced enough" to do it or what to do and how to do it. :) --E4024 (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this category, I'm happy for the name to be changed. Wikimedia UK is currently running some events to encourage Kurds in the UK to edit Wikipedia, and this is a category where I was putting public domain photos which we could use in the project. If there are already photos in the History of Kurdish People category, I suggest moving these photos there. --Jwslubbock (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More: The mother cats of this category are: Category:People of Germany by occupation and Category:Writers from Germany. Possibly I do not know the difference between writers and authors, but there are other peculiarities around German people's profession cats. While "Authors" are "People of Germany by occupation", "Writers" are also "People of Germany by occupation". On the other hand, "Essayists" etc also are ""People of Germany by occupation". I may not understand German mentality. (Supposing these cats and cat trees have been made by colleagues from Germany, and one always tends to understand/do things inspired by his/her mother tongue, even without noticing.) However, we also have admins here who speak German, and I suppose admins do not only use administrative powers but also are elected among experienced users. I think they should look at these cats and the other ones around those cats and take some action, "editorial action". Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good. And what about my other questions? Why would we "snow close"? (Is it snowing somewhere, here in Ankara it's quite sunny today. :-) --E4024 (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear E4024, your questions concerning essayists, mentality, admin powers etc. are not relevant for a CfD. And because of your lecturing tone and aggressive edit-warring in Category:Deniz Yücel and subsequently on your and my talk page I feel "a little" discouraged to sojourn in further explanations. Please look up our naming conventions for categories why I suggest this is a very clear case for a snow close. --.js14:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear .js I have no aggressive edit warring; I don't even have any edit war. Lecturing tone may be related to... I don't know what. Why did you "vote keep"? This is not a deletion discussion. On the other hand, if you have a look at my hundreds (or thousands perhaps) of edits here, you will see that I have opened to discussion more than several other categories. (I like to discuss categories, because categorization helps learning.) Please let us both give way to other people to discuss this category. If nobody joins, just forget it. No need to censure discussion. Take care. --E4024 (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any "authors" categories should be deleted or redirected to "writers" categories for consistency. There's probably nothing wrong with the term authors (unless it's a bit pretentious), but there should be consistency and "writers" is the term that is most used. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill & Auntof6: Certainly I agree to redirect & merge & move the "Authors from…" cats to "Writers from…" accordingly. I would just object a deletion of any of them. Special thanks to Themightyquill for the good sourced arguments :-) --.js21:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's spelled as "Bengo Baido" by some people. But I just made a quick search on Commons and it seems like the category category:Bengo Baja appears in the first place. So do many other files with the same name. However, feel free to not delete if makes sense to keep it. --Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the same, one has "Saint" spelled out (the other one) and a hyphen between "Church" and "in", and the other one uss the abbreviation "St." and has no hyphen between "Church" and "in"(this one). Both are functional, and both may be used by someone searching the database - one will not work for the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting one. The church's own website uses both spellings (with and without the hyphen between "Church" and "in"). I would say leave the redirect in case someone tries to use it. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the same, one has "Saint" spelled out and no hyphen between "Church" and "in" (the other one) and one uss the abbreviation "St." and there's a hyphen between "Church" and "in"(this one). Both are functional, and both may be used by someone searching the database - one will not work for the other. The question is not which of these two versions is "official" or not, but is it a functional redirect, using a likely spelling. What the "official" name is is a crapshoot. As pointed out, the church's website uses both, From Abyssinanian to Zion uses "St. Mark's Church in-the-Bowery", The Encyclopedia of New York uses "St. Mark's Church in the Bowery" (no hyphens), the WPA Guide to NYC uses "St. Mark's In-The-Bouwerie" (note capitalization and spelling and no "Church") and the Guide to NYC Landmarks and the AIA Guide to NYC uses "St. Mark's-in-the-Bowery" (no "Church"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category to be deleted. Here is the description of the category : This is a category of a flickr project from my Flickr photo stream undertaken to archive and organize family and personal photos -- and assign CC licenses and cross-share with Wikimedia Commons
But commons is not a private photo album.
The present category contains only 1 photo and this photo has other right categories. Deleting the present cat will not transform the photo as uncategoried. --Civa (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -- flagged it to be deleted. Although I believe that as a photo and data repository the idea should be focused more on inclusion versus exclusion, I agree this category is not being used and is not helpful. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. I saw a difference as in 'Symbolism' is the interpretation and 'Symbols' is just a statement. Placing this with 'Symbols' seems adequate. RSLlGriffith (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were a lot of images added using {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} previously where the links were broken. So license reviewers were unable to review it. This category had a lot of images at the time I created it, now I guess we fixed all those links. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close: Category was nominated just 2 minutes after creation! Anyway, PokestarFan was permanently blocked, so no sanctions, just close this s***t. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Category is linked to a Wikidata item and Wikipedia article, and we don't have a policy whether categories with only one member must be deleted. I think this category has the potential to expand to more members, and we should not kill this potential. ★Poké9500:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I tagged it with {{Bad name}}, so an admin will delete it. For future reference, this kind of thing can just be tagged the way I did, without bringing it here for discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. Content should be moved to other appropriate categories (landscapes, mountains, beaches, or whatever) if not already in such. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category was created as a trial style in 2008, but it has definitely not been replicated throughout commons. Images moved. Deleting category. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Themightyquill, your judgment is better than mine on this issue. I support whatever you think the best way to go in categorizing the files in question, including creating improved category names. Thanks, Kalbbes (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Steam vents are a special kind of big fumaroles, For comparison: Normal fumaroles are like the ones in the foreground of this picture File:Iceland Magic (14604713979).jpg: The steam is escaping quietly, slowly, in small quantities and without any or anyway without much noise. Whereas at steam vents, the steam is escaping in bigger quantities, the pressure behind seems more intense and often they get very noisy. See: File:Nykodym Gunnuhver I (15363827630).jpg There is a sort of hissing. Like here eg.: File:Hveravellir.ogvReykholt (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a distinction between sculptures where the swan was the main or only item, and sculptures that have swans among other things. However, that doesn't seem to be how these are divided, and I don't know if anything else is divided that way, so I'd be OK with merging these. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a clear cut distinction. Injuries doesn't implicate always loss of blood. Wounds yes. Actually wounds are a sub class of injuries. See w:injury. There are a lot of injuries being not wounds--Pierpao.lo (listening)20:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are the images of "fountainheads" here actually Category:Leader heads ? I can't find any definition of "foundtainhead" online that's associated with gutters. I'd propose deleting this category and moving images to "leader heads". Themightyquill (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of either (they've always been "hopper heads" to me). But I'd support a merge. Also I don't believe gargoyles and spouts (as opposed to downpipe entries) belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The categories Category:Slizza and Category:Gailitz denote the same river in different languages / countries. Both categories are parent and chilld category of each another. To resolve the category loop and to model the river, not the virtual object river intersected by country, I propose to merge both categories. Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
English wikipedia seems to use the term "Liberation Rally". Would that work here? It would certainly be a lot clearer, since there are many liberation organizations. At very least, we should be capitalizing both words. Themightyquill (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabic term translation is Liberation organization or Liberation authority هيئة التحرير. May be you can add Egypt: "Liberation organization (Egypt)".--Ashashyou (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any references to the organization with that name in English-language writing. If others are translating it as "Liberation Rally" it would make sense for us to do the same.- Themightyquill (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I am going to put my point of view here. I hope i am not offending anyone. I am just sharing ideas, this is the spirit of Wikipedia. One thing that i do not understand is the point of view that continues to adopt "Old Biased namings" (no offens is meant) as the case of "Liberation organisation" vs. "Liberation rally". I wonder if the same should be applied as regard "The Great war" vs. "World war one". And i wonder what happens when it comes to naming something that has one American English name vs, a British name or one Australian name vs. a British name. I assume it should e named according the "originating culture". I do not recall any examples at the time being. In my own perception, naming the organisation as a rally was a political and propaganda against it in that time by British media politicians. By labeling it as other political Rallies of that time and of the 1930s and 1940s. I am not sure about the official Egyptian description in English. Someone with huge resources should check English Egyptian journals of that time. I think "The Egyptian Gazette" was available at that time also there was another Egyptian English journal. Also someone can check for the precursor of the Egyptian state information service الهيئة العامة للاستعلامات (مصر) الهيئة العامة للاستعلامات (مصر) that was estabished in 1954. It is responsible for the non Arabic official statements. I think Wikipedia and Wikimedia is for all the humanity. Despite the fact that humanity is using English as its Lingua Franca nowadays, but Spanish and Arabic and other languages were Lingua Franca at one point of time. Maybe English will not stay as the Lingua Franca for the end of time. Also despite the fact that the main categories are made in English, but this does not mean that it is only meant to be for the English (meaning Cullturally predominant English language) people. I think it is meant to be for all humanity. Suppose some Chinese person wants to check in Arabic references for the "Liberation Rally" (assuming that there was no Wikdata Arabic link to هيئة التحرير), He will have a hell of a job to reach resources. This is actually what happened to me when trying to find any English resources after translating the name in English. I even did not get to know about the presence of an English wikipedia page util you alert me with this discussion (I owe you thanks). This would not be the case if using the term "Liberation Organisation". I think the last time the Term Liberation Rally was used publicaly in general cultural (outside small historical academia) was far back, may be in the 1960s. The Liberation organisation was short lived and was the daughter of General Mohammed Naguib (and others) that no one want to adopt, Despite other claims by Nasser. I think the description as "Liberation organisation" as far as my point of view is suitable for the following reasons:
Liberation organisation is neutral point of view translation of the Original Arabic name
English labeling of categories should adopt a neutral point of view according to the original source of the object
the term "Liberation rally" would be misleading to non-English speakers especially when trying to translate it to Arabic.
There is no point on trying to enforce "Old politcaly biased" naming in our current culture. When i heard from you about the presence of an English translation of the name as the Liberation rally, what jumped into my mind was the Rallys of Hitler and other 1930s and 1940s rallies.
Current corection of the name by accurate translation would serve better understanding about the structure of this entity "Organistaion" is not like "rally". I think Wikipedia and Commons is interested in
I hope you accept my thanks for giving me opportunity to raise this subject. I hope you carry my argument to other colleagues in the Wikipedia community. Or share the discussion. I am not sure whether my argument is touching any policy in Wikipedia or in Commons but i am sure my argument is following the Neutral point of view. You are an admin you can do what you want. I mean no harm but i wish to show you things from other non-English cultured people. I assume that the same can happen for other non-English cultured people as the Asians or Japaneese in American Language, "American indians"?, Negers/Negros/Black/Colored/African Americans, Australian Aboriginal people...etc. Time has changed, so we need to change. Thanks.--Ashashyou (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This category has been incorrectly named from its creation, which has only served to create confusion. Whereas the Wikipedia article from which it derives is in the singular, Commons categories should be plural as examples of the topic of the article. This has also led to disparate naming, contrasting "flood plains in X" and "floodplains in Y" and I think it about time we chose one or the other and rename this category and its subtrees to what it should have been all along. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion also. And I'd propose to chose "floodplains" as a common denomination, sounds "american" to me, and as Wikimedia an America-based project, I think it would be appropriate to take over this category name.Reykholt (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google suggests that the single word "floodplain" dominates strongly over "flood plain", so I'd propose we go with the single word. Not scientific, but indicative, perhaps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the images, yes. Maybe leave as a redirect, since the cat seems to have been assigned by bots in the files I spot-checked. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Maybe some of them would, but I think I've seen bots (upload bots, if that makes a difference) look at the tags in a file description and the words in the file name and assign them as categories even if the categories didn't exist. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a good description - however the common usage point emerges again. I was an exam consultant for Biology and 'Tree rings' as a term was used. RSLlGriffith (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCategory:Births by day, Category:Deaths by day, and subcategories. (I've added a cfd template to those two parent categories.) This is a case of making a category just because we can, regardless of whether it's useful. People who died on or were born on the same calendar day don't have anything meaningful in common. If someone is trying to remember the name of someone who died on a given day, Wikipedia pages such as en:January 12 are a better choice. Trying to populate these categories would be an enormous task with little or no reward. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on July 4. So, deaths of July 4 does have some relevance. The enormity of the task shouldn't really be an issue. They will populate gradually over time. Evrik (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One coincidence doesn't make these categories relevant. Even if it did, though, Wikipedia is a better place to find this information: it's not meaningful in a media repository. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, people. Please offer clear explanations/arguments for your opinions. I don't see how this category tree is useful. I'm not actually a big fan even of the "deaths by year" tree, but it's a standard way to categorize people and there might be a connection between people who died in the same year. What possible connection could there between, for example, someone's death on 17 December 1723 and another person's death on 17 December 2016? We don't categorize people by other coincidences. There's no Category:People named James who were married to people named Vanessa. I'm certainly open to explanation, but no one above has even tried to explain why this is a worthwhile category scheme. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sanskrit literature has these unique shlokas which create a pattern in the form of a picture when letters are arranged in a particular way. Such shlokas with hidden picture patterns are called as Chitra bandhas and such a way of creating shlokas is called as Chitra Paddati. Shivaram ac (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is this category and its subcats for? It refers to the English Wikipedia page en:Local for explanation, but that is a disambiguation page. The subcats under Category:Locals by city seem to be for hospitality buildings: can we rename them to that? The subcats under Category:Local specialty goods could at the very least be renamed to remove the term "local", and may need other work as well. Auntof6 (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Christkichau: : The category currently has no images and no parent categories. It links to one image which doesn't feature "獨贏". If you can categorize the category and populate it with images, I could understand why you want to keep it. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco: Ok, it seems I was not clear. This Cat is intended as tagging/maintenance Cat, but the opposite case is the wrong case (specially on Commons). Because rendering logos in locally font families is senseless, if we want to be authentic. So nearly 100% of the logos here should be in this Cat. It seems I should discuss this somewhere else. -- User: Perhelion09:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion: I misunderstood the situation. You're right, this category is the default case, and a font-rendered logo belongs in a maintenance category. Looking into this a bit more, I see that the categories are set by Template:Image generation. That talk page would be a good place to restart this discussion. Guanaco (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hallo Ein Dahmer, ich habe gestern eine Kategorie Peilschiff auf Commons angelegt, weil es den Artikel Peilschiff in der de.wp gibt, der mehrere Peilschiffe auflistet, zu deren Bildern man aber nicht systematisch geführt wird, weil es keine entsprechende Commonscat gab. Im weiteren wollte ich mich heute daran machen, zu den Bildern der Peilschiffe bzw. ihren Kategorien die Category:Peilschiff hinzuzufügen, um dann letztlich vom Artikel Peilschiff einen Commonscat-Link auf die Commons Category:Peilschiff zu setzen. Wenn ich Dich richtig verstehe, siehst Du ein Problem in dieser Strukturierung und verweist auf die Commons Category Category:Survey ships of Germany. Wenn Du das so siehst, frage ich Dich: Warum gibt es dann in der de.wp die Differenzierung Vermessungsschiff und Peilschiff? An beiden Artikeln der de.wp hast Du 2015 editiert, so dass ich davon ausgehe, dass Du Dir dieser Differenzierung bewusst bist. Beide Artikel-Diskussionsseiten sind leer. Im Dualismus Vermessungsschiff und Peilschiff hat bisher noch niemand ein Problem gesehen. Wenn Du Dich gegen eine Commons Category:Peilschiff aussprichst, solltest Du zunächst diesen Dualismus in der de.wp klären. Zum Beipiel indem Du konsequenter Weise den de.wp-Artikel Peilschiff in eine Weiterleitung zum Artikel Vermessungsschiff umwandelst und den Content von Peilschiff in einen Abschnitt Peilschiff des Artikels Vermessungsschiffs aufnimmst. Aber solange es den Artikel Peilschiff gibt, sehe ich ohne Weiteres nicht ganz ein, warum es keine Commonscat dazu geben sollte, die dann zum Beispiel eine Sub-Category von Category:Survey ships of Germany sein könnte. Liebe Grüße ---Michael 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Moin Michael, die Kategorien bei Commons sollen grundsätzlich in Englisch benannt werden (Commons:Categories#Category names). Zum Thema Vermessungsschiff vs. Peilschiff hatte ich mal eine Diskussion gestartet, die aber leider nicht beantwortet wurde. Ich gebe dir vollkommen Recht, dass hier jetzt was passieren muss. Gruß von der Küste --Ein Dahmer (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für die Aufklärung bzgl. der Category names und für die Weiterverarbeitung meines Hinweises. Liebe Grüße --Michael 18:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Emptied. Subcats moved to railway lines in South Australia; files moved to other categories. Propose deletion of category to clean up. Scott (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep spanish category, Río Papaloapan is a important zone in Mexico and could be great to have a spanish category. Think in this way school childs in the region will search with papaloapan or rio papaloapan in spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.247.227.15 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The categories for Mexico's various rivers use a mix of River, Rio, and Río (with the accent). The same is true for rivers of Spain, although most of those use "River". The policies at Commons:Categories#Category names and Commons:Language policy state that category names should generally be in English. Although the Rio Grande is commonly referred to in English by its Spanish name (more or less, many say the redundant "Rio Grande River"), that seems to be an exception. Unless this particular river is known to English speakers primarily under its Spanish name, we should probably use "River". Please note that the requirement for category names to be in English is due to a software limitation, nothing more. That requirement is expected to change in the future when the software issue can be worked out. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, a redirect should be left and the Spanish name should definitely be added to the category description either way, so that anyone searching for Rio Papaloapan will find the right category. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me the situation is, most of the scholar visits from kids in comunities around Río Papaloapan could be in spanish. So "river" will be a solution for english speakers, but not for the people in this big region of Mexico. So think about it.
--Koffermejia (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC) 10:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
And only those, who had been there knew the whole truth. At the end of 1944 and right after the II. world war 700.000 hungarians, civils and military were abducted by soviet occupying authorities to death camps in the Soviet Union. None of the „reasons” were legal or justified. Theese death camps are well documented, thought until 1990 Hungary was occupied by the Soviet Union, it was prohibited to talk about theese death camps under serious penalties. From the 700.000 abducted, only 300.000 could return to Hungary (after several years, mainly after the death of Stalin). If you have not heard about this subject, please read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Gulag Archipelago Harper & Row, Newe York, San Francisco, London (The three-volume book is a narrative relying on eyewitness testimony (200) and primary research material, as well as the author's own experiences as a prisoner in a gulag camp for 11 years. Written between 1958 and 1968, it was published in the West in 1973, thereafter circulating in samizdat (underground publication) form in the Soviet Union until its official publication in 1989). Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: For years I have with reluctant heart withheld from publication this already complete book: my obligation to those still living outweighed my obligation to the dead. But now that State Security has seized the book anyway, I have no alternative but to publish it immediately. In this book there are no fictitious persons, nor fictitious events. People and places are named with their own names. If they are identified by initials instead by names, it is for personal considerations. If they are not named at all, it is only because human memory has failed to preserve their names. But it all took place just as it is here described. Please read this book and delete: Category:Forced labor of Hungarians in the Soviet Union, --Elekes Andor (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we eliminate this category and let the two subcats stand on their own? This appears to be the only "dams and weirs" category. Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That would make sense to me. There's a "dams by country", and a "weirs by country", but no "dams and weirs by country" category tree for this to join. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. @Motacilla: - No need for discussion when it's just a typo. Next time, you can put {{Bad name|Christian Science churches in Scotland}} on the wrong category and it will be deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear purpose, and uncategorized. I've sorted the images appropriately. If this category has a useful purpose, it should be renamed. If not, it should be deleted. Themightyquill (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New York is ambiguous with two primary meanings: The state of New York and New York City. Propose moving the state to Category:New York (state). NYC is probably the more common meaning of "New York", but the state does include the city. Either way two major meanings, with no clear predominance implies disambiguation is a good thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for this change. The names are not ambiguous, because the name of the city includes the word "City". There is a link to the city category at the top of the state category. Are there any categories for the city that don't have the word "City" in their names? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the problem, and the need for the change, is that the city is very commonly called plain "New York", and that is certainly the most common name internationally. Its very commonly "New York" within the US, and almost universal elsewhere. If you ask someone what city the Statue of Liberty is in, the answer will invariably be "New York". As a commonly used, naturally disambiguated name for the city exists (New York City), its logical to put the city there. That does not mean plain "New York" is unambiguous, and is therefore free for the other primary meaning of the term New York (the state).
Commons category names aren't really relevant - they should include the "City", and additional categories will also do so as people will be consistent with what is already there. What is more relevant is what the Wikipedias do. en puts the state at w:New York, but fr, de, es, it, nl, ru - in fact almost all other languages put the state at (state). fr is the largest wiki that puts the city at New York
However, the main reason to support this move is the reams of discussion at w:Talk:New York - if this is a perennial discussion on Wikipedia, that suggests a significant proportion of en.wp believes there IS sufficient ambiguity for Wikipedia's purposes. Disambiguation is more important, so should be done sooner on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was also going to nominate this myself, see the talk page but I thought because the city lies in the state, images intended for it won't be in the wrong place. However to many Americans and almost every non American "New York" means the city, as far as I'm aware, not many would expect to find the city at "New York City", they would expect "New York". This is probably very surprising to non Americans and we should probably try to avoid surprise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have changed the mainspace redirect of "New York" to the city gallery. In this case readers looking for the city will get to it and files intended for the city won't be in the wrong category as the state contains the city. This is possible a case of w:Wikipedia:DABCONCEPT but maybe the city should be the main page instead (probably not though due to miss-categorization). There don't appear to be any major topics that are different to the state and city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's ambiguous for English speakers (and for that reason it was renamed on English Wikipedia), it's probably more likely to mean the city for non-native speakers on English. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu14:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question I was asking was whether we need a DAB as both New York state and New York city refer to variations of the same place unlike Georgia or Washington, although there are other separate meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with User:Od Mishehu. It is indeed ambiguous for non-native speakers. A french or german speaker would certainly not pronounce or use New York City. Renaming the state Category:New York (state) would eliminate the risk of incorrect categorized files, and yes, a DAB would be correct. --Bohème (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Mainspace article was recently moved to w:New York (state), concluding years of debate. Mainspace categories are being transferred from "X in New York" to "X in New York (state)" and we are discovering articles which belong to "X in New York City" instead. Surely the same confusion exists with pictures in Commons: some will go to "New York City", others to "New York (state)". JFG (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the term New York is seriously ambiguous (in English, and there is no reason to think that this and related categories would be named in other than the default language). Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Category:New York (state). Unanimous support for proposal, both within regular Commons community and from outside, and from users with different primary languages.--Nilfanion (talk)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Do we really need this? Usually, "photographs" is simply the default for what is on Commons. Are we going to split out "photographs of" from virtually every single category on Commons? Jmabel ! talk15:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait! Soon we will have cats like "Black and white photographs of men with glasses", or even "Photographs of nude men with glasses on their thingy" and like... --E4024 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our "photographs" categories are for grouping photographs by characteristic, not for individual photographs. If we were going to keep this category, it should contain only subcategories like black and white photographs of men with glasses, portrait photographs of men with glasses, paintings of men with glasses, etc., and not files. This cat should be merged up to Category:Men with glasses, or wherever that category ends up. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I don't understand the problem. Why would we delete "Photographs of men with glasses" and consider that we should keep "Black and white photographs of men with glasses" ?? "Men with glasses" doesn't mean it's only about photographs : it can be paintings, drawings, etc. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...16:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's because there is a convention here that any category whose name starts with "Photographs of" has a special use: grouping photographs by characteristic. That's because the vast majority of files here are photographs and we don't want to have to specify "photographs" for everything. These categories often get polluted with individual files, but those are removed when someone notices it. The category being discussed here has no subcats of the type that would be expected, so it isn't being used in the expected way and everything in it can just go under Category:Men with glasses. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be clearer, as long as we're sure that nothing here is men with glasses in the image but not being worn. We should make all similar cats (in and underneath Category:People with glasses) the same. Do you think we should go a step further and call it Category:Men wearing eyeglasses, in case somebody comes up with a way to wear drinking glasses (maybe as part of some strange costume)? Also, no categories named after people should be here, although they could be in a category named "Men who wear/wore glasses" or something similar. It's possible I'm overthinking this! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Internationally, "glasses" is better than "eyeglasses", a word that pretty much does not exist in British English. The most common British term is "spectacles", but "glasses" is also used. - Jmabel ! talk23:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving my unuseful jokes high above to their natural death, let me say something that might be useful: If the cat is changed to "Men/women wearing glasses", to the images where there is a person and eyeglasses, say visible in a pocket of the person, then we should use only the cat for the "glasses" ("white glasses" etc) and not "men with". --E4024 (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one "wears" a beard, unless it's a false beard, and it's much less likely that there would be images of people with beards not attached to them. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with "people with beards not attached to them", you mean false beards waiting to be attached; like on the table or by the bedside to "wear" in the morning? Pictures of the latter kind could really be difficult to find (or take :). --E4024 (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing moving to Category:Mississippi (state). To disambiguate from the Mississippi River, while in English it is usually called as such, it is not in other languages. The river in my experience is more well known internationally and it gets slightly more page views. Given that the river is in several states unlike New York City, miss-categorization is also a risk. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC) However as pointed out by Nilfanion, many won't require disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page views? Where? The only pageview stats that I'd consider admissible are those on Commons -and those are likely too small to be statistically useful. The most important pertinent statistic to me here is # files uploaded. By that measure, the state will beat the river by several orders of magnitude. That said, you make a good point that outside of the US the word Mississippi is to be understood to mean the river. fr.wp and de.wp are two wikis that choose to dab here, a strong indicator that the state isn't the dominant meaning in languages other than English.
@Nilfanion: I'm not sure why pageviews on the English Wikipedia aren't relevant but you can see that that the state has had 53,934 views while the river had 64,533. Why is files uploaded the most important statistic? As you pointed out we are mainly looking at what readers are looking for. Although maybe too small to be statistically useful the river has had 143 views while the state 90 here. The river probably is indeed a more global topic while the state is (I think) relatively unknown outside the US. If there was an English county called "Thames" then it would probably get the title "Thames" on the English Wikipedia but should probably be disambiguated here for the same reasons. I don't think Illinois needs to be done for example (69,564 v 3,100 views) but Colorado and Missouri might. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
en.wikipedia views are not really relevant to a Commons CFD, as this is about Commons. "Readers" in our context means people who are on Commons to look for media, not people on Wikipedia looking for information. There is overlap between Commons "readers" and WP readers, but Commons is not an adjunct to en.wikipedia. A number of extra factors means its a very dubious, if not totally useless, proxy. How on Earth can we work out the proportion of Commons users come from which WP article, and in what proportion? If only 1% of readers of w:Missisippi come to Commons, but 25% of the readers of w:Mississippi River do, that's significant - and the river would be dominant here. All you can really infer from the WP pageviews is that is the WP articles on both get a lot of readers, and therefore both likely generate traffic to Commons. A more complete analysis of WP stats means looking at all wikis, not just the English one, and there are just too many uncertainties in such a comparison. In short - don't even try to interpret WP pageviews, just look at Commons data for stats.
Number of files is a strictly Commons measure, and is equivalent to internal link count on WP. That first fact means it can be applied without complication, the 2nd means its equivalent to an admissible stat on Wikipedia. Its relevance for this sort of discussion is simple: The most likely route for a "reader" to get to a Commons category page is from a Commons file and clicking the category link, hoping to find more media. The numbers are also big enough to not be prone to statistical anomalies. IMO its the only thing available that is a hard number.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding the other "river" states: The only other one which might be an issue is the Colorado, as IMO that is the only other river that is likely to have been heard of outside the US by a reasonable number of people. If the rivers are only really known inside of the US, then the state will "win" both inside and outside the country (Ohio for instance).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of people searching on Commons would probably be a good test (people coming from Wikipedia will follow the link anyway) but difficult to guess (but we might be able to get a rough idea). Indeed you make a good point about what readers will be interested in (particually globally), indeed I imagine that as you pointed out a lot more of our readers will be interested in the river than the state.
Yes, that was partly what I was trying to get at in the nomination, I agree no change is needed for Illinois or Ohio but @Nilfanion: would you suggest that I also nominate Colorado or just wait to see how this one goes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of people searching on WP is the perfect measure for primary topic analysis, but is unobtainable. All other metrics are simply a way to estimate that number. As for Commons that is still a very important measure, but isn't the only one - for example, HotCat users would not show up in search statistics.
The numbers are hard to get at with the sheer number of subcats but tools are available. However, gauging relevance is hard. Someone might mark File:U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Vicksburg, MS IMG 7016.JPG as relating to the state, but they certainly wouldn't mark it as relating to the river. However it is in a subcat of both. When it comes to relevant files I'd fully expect the state, with an area of 48,000 square miles, to have much more media than a 2,300-mile long river. Every photo taken within the state is relevant to the state, but only a portion of the photos taken within a mile of the river will be relevant to the river. I would not start a discussion for Colorado or Missouri or any of the others until this one resolves. There is never any need to rush these things.
This thread is very off-topic now - please focus on Mississippi. In short: Mississippi is ambiguous, and it is more likely to be understood as meaning the river outside of the US, and especially in languages other than English. That means non-Americans searching for (or uploading) files of the river are likely to get the wrong category (the one for the state) with the existing setup. That supports a move.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I expect that as pointed out more people would look for images of the river than the state.
Obviously the state has much more relevant in terms of areas, but indeed as we pointed out, the river is more important on a global scale and has more "enduring notability and educational value" than the state, which is only important in the US. I'd heard of the river from school but wasn't aware of the state except from Wikipedia.
Agreed there is no rush even for this one, I still only weakelly support this change, so I'll leave the others alone untill at least this one is finished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aircraft by country of location has recently been amended via (Template:Aircraft in country) such that categories of the form Aircraft in (country) are now each defined as a child of the associated Aircraft of (country). I queried the author about this apparent illogical and ambiguous action at User talk:Joshbaumgartner#Template:Aircraft in country, but received a rambling and wholly unconvincing response. I assert that Aircraft of (country) implies "belonging to", and that constituents of Aircraft in (country) cannot all "belong to" the subject country. I propose that the direct relationship between Aircraft in (country) and Aircraft by (country) should be deleted via the template, to remove the ambiguity. PeterWD (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the Joshbaumgartner's answer is relatively reasonable – have you consider his points of view?
Generally, we have several kinds how a vehicle (or even any subject generally) can belong to certain country or place: 1) by origin/manufacturer, 2) by registration of the vehicle 3) by registration of the operator, 4) by the home/usual depot/hangar 5) by immediate location (where the photo was taken) etc. etc. In some cases, we merge two or three such criteria together, if their overlap is substantial (e.g. trams are usually registered in the same country and city where they are operated). In case of aircraft, the three main criteria have weak overlap, that's why we can have 3 different metacategories of aicraft by country. However, all three of them have some close relation each to the others. The categories Aircraft produced in France, Aircraft registered in France and Aircraft photographed in France need to be distinguished, but all of them contain aicraft which have some relation to France, which "belongs" to France somehow. There is a semantic and structural question whether the grammar expression "of France" can be understood as most general to can cover the two remained categories of the same level as their parent category, or whether we need som 4th category as the umbrella category for the three. --ŠJů (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: Thanks for pinging me on this. Aircraft of the United Kingdom? I'm not sure if it is easier to set up a new umbrella category, and sort everything up, or to base it on the well-populated and diverse 'of' category and sub-categorize appropriately, but in the end the same result would be achieved. Fit an appropriate word in for 'of' and adjust the category names as seen fit below to make everyone happy:
* Aircraft of Country
** Aircraft operated by Country (de facto Aircraft in Country colors)
** Aircraft originating from Country
** Aircraft built in Country
** Aircraft located in Country
** Aircraft registered in Country
** ...other relationships between Aircraft and Country
Support "Foo of <country>" means belonging to the country (or belonging to a company based in the country). When aircraft of, for example, France, travel to Japan, they are in Japan, but they don't become the property of Japan. The "of" and "in" categories should be parallel. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too restrictive, would eliminate the majority of the current use of these categories. Example: In Category:Aircraft of the United Kingdom, 158 of its current 161 direct subcategories would have to be removed because they are not limited to aircraft belonging to the United Kingdom or to British companies or organizations. Besides, ownership is a difficult basis to use, because often it is unknown, or even in contravention of what is visible in the media. What we really mean most of the time is not 'owned by', but instead, 'in the colors of'. If an American museum owns and displays a Spitfire in RAF colors, should a user be able to find a picture of that aircraft (see image at right) by looking under 'Aircraft of the United Kingdom'? Common sense would say yes, but it isn't owned by the United Kingdom, so according to this proposal, the answer would would no. Josh (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we should temporarily ignore all the other subcats of Aircraft of (country), and concentrate on this particular one. We have to always remember that Commons:Categories says that the purpose of categories is to enable a user to find an appropriate file (eg image), for use in an article or other file type. Categories don't have to conform to individuals' beliefs about how to group (ie categorise) stuff. Already, we have uninformed users often adding categories to an image for background secondary or tertiary subjects (eg partially hidden aircraft) that no user would ever seek for their intended usage. It should be easy to find an RAF Spitfire in an American museum via many existing category branches such as Supermarine aircraft, Spitfire museum aircraft, Aviation museums in the United States, Aircraft of the air force of the United Kingdom (ugh), Aircraft in the United States, Aircraft by registration, Military aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, etc. The constituents of Aircraft in (country) are already child categories of Aviation in (country), so logically both Aircraft in (country) and Aircraft of (country) need only be parallel children of Aviation in (country) - but perhaps the latter should be renamed Aviation of (country)?PeterWD (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say this Peter, but to apply a strict rationale to one category while 'temporarily' ignoring the other 157 categories that violate that rationale strikes me as a very bad idea. Josh (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was at Category:Haderslev Amtsbaner for quite a while - are you sure you don't want to leave a redirect? Also, for next time, it's preferable to move a category (with a tab at the top) rather than creating a new one and asking to delete the old one. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per concerns on IRC, that the licensing and copyright situation of these is not necessarily fully compatible with Commons until 2039 ( given the potential copyright issues in the UK.). The claim about electronic versions seems to have been added by a single contributor in good faith. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) Fino al 1798 l’Ordine, pur con qualche diversità geografica e di fede religiosa, era unico ed indipendente denominato “Sovrano Ordine di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme”;
2) con la presa di Malta da parte di Napoleone Bonaparte, la continuità storica “in esilio” è determinata dagli oltre 400 cavalieri che, con la maggioranza del consiglio Magistrale in carica, si recano in Russia a San Pietroburgo e che con i delegati dei Priorati Europei eleggono lo zar Paolo I° quale Gran Maestro dell’Ordine.
3) Dopo la morte dello zar, ogni diritto storico rimane sempre in San Pietroburgo, con il governo retto da un luogotenente (Nikolay Saltykov) con la protezione dello zar Alessandro I°;
4) solo nel 1802 (art. 15 del Trattato di Amiens), i cavalieri del Sovrano Ordine di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme sarebbero potuti tornare nell’isola di Malta, perché a loro retrocessa dagli Stati aderenti al trattato stesso, cosa che però non avvenne per il mantenimento della occupazione militare dell’isola da parte inglese.
5) Il 9 febbraio 1803, per volontà di S.S. Papa Pio VII°, venne in pratica rifondata la “lingua” italiana cattolica con la elezione del Gran Maestro in persona di Fra' Giovanni Battista Tommasi e con la denominazione di Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta (S.M.O.M.).
6) Il Sovrano Ordine di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme rimase sempre in Russia a San Pietroburgo, sotto la protezione degli zar, fino al 1917 (rivoluzione bolscevica).
7) E’ determinante la sentenza Cardinalizia del 1953 che dichiara lo “SMOM”: “Ordine Religioso, di Diritto Canonico, di sub locazione Vaticana (con alcuni privilegi diplomatici) e quindi obbediente al Santo Padre” (Tribunale Cardinalizio, sentenza 24.1.53; pubb.: "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" n. 15 del 30.11.1953).
8) Altresì risulta indispensabile citare la sentenza della Pretura di S.Agata di Puglia, Sent. N. 81/1955 con la quale è individuata nel “Sovrano Ordine di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme” nella continuità di S.A.R., il Principe Nicola, de Ligny-Luxembourg di Lascaris Ventimiglia, dell’antica Dinastia Ardennes-Lorena, la unica discendenza storica, giuridica ed ereditaria di quei cavalieri che difesero Gerusalemme nella 1° crociata e che nel 1113 furono i destinatari della Bolla di Papa Pasquale II°.
In particolare, pur essendo lo SMOM il ramo che ha avuto più fortuna oggi, è sempre la rifondazione dell’Ordine religioso nel 1803 (sentenza del Tribunale Cardinalizio).
Pertanto, egregi colleghi, pur essendo magari con voi d’accordo per la ridondanza di qualche paragrafo, una “storia unica” potrebbe essere operata scientificamente fino al 1798, ma chiaramente non oltre, proprio per la diversificazione delle otto “lingue” e dei differenti regni nei quali rientrarono i cavalieri dopo Malta. Cordialmente. --Sebastian60 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Colleagues,
as author of the study published Category:Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, I can only remember the following the dearest Themightyquill, Auntof6, Alaspada:
1) Until 1798 the Order, albeit with some geographic diversity and religious faith, was unique and independent called "Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem";
2) With Napoleon Bonaparte's take on Malta, the historical continuity of "exile" is determined by the more than 400 riders who, with the majority of the Magistral Council in office, travel to Russia to St. Petersburg and with delegates from European Priests elect the Tsar Paul I as Grand Master of the Order.
3) After the Tsar's death, every historical right remains in St. Petersburg, with the government governed by a lieutenant (Nikolay Saltykov) with the protection of Tsar Alexander I;
4) Only in 1802 (Article 15 of the Amiens Treaty) the knights of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem could return to the island of Malta, because they were relegated to them by the states that acceded to the treaty, but this did not happen For the maintenance of the British military occupation of the island.
5) On February 9, 1803, by the will of S.S. Pope Pius VII, the Italian "Catholic language" was re-established with the election of the Grand Master in the name of Fra Giovanni Battista Tommasi and the denomination of Sovereign Military Order of Malta (S.M.O.M.).
6) The Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem remained in Russia in St. Petersburg under the protection of the Tsar until 1917 (Bolshevik Revolution).
7) The Declaration of Cardinalism of 1953 declaring the "SMOM": "Religious Order, of Canon Law, of Vatican (with some diplomatic privileges) and therefore obedient to the Holy Father" (Court of Cardinals, judgment 24.1.53 ; Pub. "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" No. 15 of November 30, 1953).
8) It is also indispensable to cite the judgment of the Pretura of S.Agata di Puglia, Sent. N. 81/1955, which is identified in the "Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem" in the continuity of SAR, Prince Nicola, Ligny-Luxembourg of Lascaris Ventimiglia, of the ancient Ardennes-Lorena Dynasty, the only historical, Legal and hereditary of those knights who defended Jerusalem in the 1st Crusade and who in 1113 were the recipients of the Paste II Pope Bull.
In particular, while SMOM is the branch that has been most fortunate today, it is always the re-establishment of the religious order in 1803 (judgment of the Cardinal Tribunal).
Therefore, good colleagues, even though you may agree with the redundancy of some paragraphs, a "unique story" could be operated scientifically until 1798, but clearly not beyond, precisely because of the diversification of the eight "languages" and the different Kingdoms in which the horsemen returned after Malta. Cordialement --Sebastian60 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This category and the "Other Protestant churches" categories under it need to be deleted, renamed, or merged. Each of the five "Category:Other Protestant churches in <place>" categories is a subcategory of "Category:Churches in <place> by religion" except the one for the UK: that one is a subcat of Category:Churches in the United Kingdom by denomination.
One possibility is to merge the other-Protestant categories two levels up to "Category:Churches in <place>" and delete the "other" categories.
Another possibility is to create new trees for Protestant churches in each location and populate them appropriately. For example, we'd have this structure:
The choice might depend on which thing is considered the religion: Christianity, Protestantism (and, by extension, Catholicism), or the denominations within Protestantism. I'm not familiar enough with the various groups categorized under Category:Churches in the United Kingdom by denomination to feel confident diffusing that category if we choose that option.
@Psubhashish: What is the duplicate category? Is this a user category? If it's really a duplicate, you could request speedy deletion instead of bringing it here for discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be correct. The reason I used Fowler of Louth as a category is that there is another architect en:C. Hodgson Fowler, working at the same time who also worked in Lincolnshire. The practice has grown up to normally refer to James Fowler as Fowler of Louth to emphasis the distinction. Tyssil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyssil (talk • contribs) 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I support the former option as grammatically sound. Both the rivers and the stretches of river need to be in Africa to be in the category. But the whole category tree is phrased equally awkwardly:
I agree that the whole tree is badly named, but I came across this particular one that is worse. I'd be happy to see all these be renamed. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any category that includes the word "or" is bound to lead to uncertainty and confusion and should thus be deprecated. "Stretches of rivers" are surely subcats of a parent river, so if we have "Rivers of X" we should have them by type as a subcat, "Stretches of rivers of X". Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean. The problem is for me, that sometimes whole rivers are eg. meandering and sometimes (more often) just stretches of rivers. We could call them perhaps "Rivers or stretches of rivers of Asia by type by country" like User Auntof6 proposes. It would not be precise enough to call a whole river "meander" or "meandering river", if this concerns just a small part of the river. Even if we are talking about glacial rivers, they change eg. their composition downflow and only in their upper course are they typical glacial rivers. So it was about finding a denomination comprising these different stages.Reykholt (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point, but conceptually they aren't the same. If you look at English Wikipedia's corresponding categories, these make more sense, not only because they have scientific disciplines underneath academic disciplines. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see there are different categories in English wikipedia, too. However, their description don't show essential differences, but just take different viewpoints.
An academic discipline, or field of study, is a branch of knowledge that is taught and researched at the college or university level. Disciplines are defined (in part), and recognized by the academic journals in which research is published, and the learned societies and academic departments or faculties to which their practitioners belong.
This category is for branches of science divided into four major groups:
Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including fundamental forces and biological life)
Formal sciences (such as mathematics and logic, which use an a priori, as opposed to factual, methodology)
Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies
Applied sciences, which apply existing scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications, like technology or inventions
As far as I could see, most subfields are in both categories, in English wikipedia (and in commons). From the descriptions, I can't see any reason to include some subfield in one category, but not in the other, can you?
If the distinct categories are to be kept, their relation should be made clear in their descriptions (to be added to the commons categories). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In English wikipedia, en:Academic disciplines redirects to en:Discipline (academia) which defines it as "a branch of knowledge.". And en:Science is defined as "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions" (I omit "about the universe" as I think it focuses too much on physics or at least natural science).
So I suggest that Category:Academic disciplines should be made a supercategory of Category:Scientific disciplines (since the former is about any kind of knowledge while the latter is about special kinds of knowledge), the links to English wikipedia and the introductory defining sentences should be added to both commons categories. Would that be ok?
@Jochen Burghardt, Auntof6, and Themightyquill: Quiet for going on 3 years... there seems no consensus to merge these two, but instead to keep them distinct with 'scientific' under 'academic'. Does anyone have maybe an explanatory note that can be added to clarify the dirrerence for those not already aware of it? In any case can we close this and leave the existing 2 cats in place? Josh (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the old station has 60+ years of history whilst the new one has less than a year, I think it is quite reasonable to disambiguate. Yasu (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DAJFの現状維持案でよいと思います。この議論が4年間も放置されていること自体、今の分類名で困る人がいないことを示しています。2017年にできた駅ですがはや4年。20～30年なんてあっという間です。Aki-Kameyama Station (2017-)に改名するデメリットは、(2017-)という文字列の付加を画像の投稿者に強いることです。人々の意識の中では「Aki-Kameyama駅」と言えばもはや一つしかないのに、いちいち作られた年を入力しなければいけない。非常に面倒です。一方のAki-Kameyama Station (1936-2003)は、途中駅だったこともあってか2021年5月現在で写真はたったの一点しかなく、この先も増える見込みはありません。過去のものと無理に対等にしようとすると、不便さというコストを利用者に強いることになります。--トトト (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to rename (non-admin closure) This one certainly has been open for quite a while. There are a couple of suggestions for alternative names with either (2017) or (2017-) but neither option seems to have gained support here. I also note that a hatnote was placed at the top of the two category pages in 2018 to aid editors and readers to navigate between the two entities. I can't see any consensus to rename here, so I am closing this with a default of keeping the current name. For reference of the participants, I have a fair (but not fluent) understanding of Japanese; feel free to drop me a line if you have any other cases like this that have been stuck open for a while due to a shortage of Japanese-speaking closers. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: In closing this case down, it appears it was never listed at Commons:Categories for discussion, which could explain why the discussion became stalled. Editors who support a name change may wish to start a new discussion and ensure it is listed properly. There is no guarantee though that restarting the discussion will lead to a different outcome. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was moved and then requested to be moved back, then the tag was removed without discussion, I moved it back but as noted it probably needs discussion. The question is whether Norwich in England is primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the question on whether Norwich in England is primary is ridicules as all other locations (i.e. Norwich, New York; Norwich, Ontario; Norwich, Jamaica) have been named after the city of Norwich in Norfolk, United Kingdom Kolforn (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Old thread, but I recently moved an image or two that was in the Norwich category that actually belonged in Norwich, New York, although I keep expecting to come across some incorrect ones that belong in Norwich, Connecticut. ----DanTD (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been open now since March 2017 (5 years) so I think it is time that it was closed. Seems to consensus is that the category should remain as the primary, as all other destinations are named after Norwich in the United Kingdom. Kolforn (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot be considered in isolation from the two other categories within Category:National Museum of Ireland. It is clearly a branch of that institution which should remain to be clear and allow files of each to be clearly delineated. Propose no change. Ardfern (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the category is necessary to keep branches/buildings of the National Museum of Ireland distinct; many museums operate over several sites, often miles apart. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, the building itself has the words "Natural History Museum" written above its entrance. I think it makes sense to have the words "Natural History" in the name of the category somehow. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For once Wikipedia has the right name for its article. Tha's not always the case, and I don't advocate following en:WP slavishly. Our default position on Commons is (or should be) to use the name the organisation itself uses. Unfortunately, the Wiki articles have a bunch of dead links, but it's clear from this link that the proper name of the article, and category, should be Category:National Museum of Ireland - Natural History. Other bracnhes of the museum, mutatis mutandis. Since this is stalled, I propose to do this after a couple of days unless others object. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Just taking a quick look, maybe the "related" buildings have some association with either the church, its history, or its important figures, and the things in "buildings of" actually belong to the church. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is a clearly named category for a group of buildings not owned by or dedicated by the Church, that are nevertheless related to its history. Also - six years old, there is no consensus to change - removing the notice --Trödel17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia is ambiguous with two primary meanings - the country in the Caucasus and the American state. The country has greater political significance as a sovereign state, while the US state has both a higher population and stronger economy. Those two points mean it is likely the American Georgia gets more photographs uploaded, even without the Western bias of the internet. The country is at w:Georgia (country) on en.wikipedia, while other major languages are split three ways: Disambiguating the country, putting the country at the base name, or no conflict as the country has a different spelling (ie Georgien). Given this, plus the fact Commons should disambiguate if in doubt, Georgia should be disambiguated.
Support, and many subcategories should be similarly qualified. Those for unambiguous places in the country might not need the qualifier. This page could become a disambiguation page -- there are several things that could go on it in addition to the country and the state -- the given name, a drink, a populated place in Vermont, some ships, a typeface, and maybe others. If moved, we should be sure to update Wikidata. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNeutralWeak supportSupport, per Auntof6, this was one I was thinking about nominating myself one day. While the current PT is the country, the English Wikipedia has the articles and categories disambiguated. Even though having the Wikipedia article on the country disambiguated is arguably US-centric, Commons should have higher standards for PTs and due to the amount of US readers/uploaders, we are likely to get many readers/files in the wrong place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Satt 2's page views show that even on the English Wikipedia the country gets more views so globally the country must surely be dominant but is this enough?
Changing back to support, now because if we based names in German for example, the state would be at "Georgia" but in fewer languages is the country "Georgia". I'd also point out that it must be overwhelmingly likely to be sought/uploaded to or overwhelmingly more important, the first one seems to be quite clearly not met, the second, has been disputed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The fact that US State of Georgia has a higher population and stronger economy is pretty irrelevant. Across different Wikimedia projects the rule of thumb is that articles should link to whatever is the most popular search destination. According to Wikipedia visitor statistics, the country of Georgia is twice as popular as the state, receiving 3 million hits in the past year, as opposed to only 1.5 million for the State. The fact that "Georgia" on English Wikipedia does not default to the country is simply due to the politics and obstruction on the part of US-centric editors from the state of Georgia. I see no reason to mimic that here on commons. We already have a category for the state of Georgia, which is appropriately noted on the country page.--Satt 2 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense for articles. If you're looking for the Wikipedia article on the US state and end up at the article for the country, you'll figure it out pretty quickly when the article says "Georgia is a country." Here on Commons, that's not the case. How many people could look tell just from the images which category they were looking at? Besides that, on Wikipedia, you'd be reading in a language you know. On Commons, where all category names are in English, a non-English speaker might not be able to tell from non-image clues. It's easy to just put Category:Georgia on something without seeing what that category is for. Bots miscategorize things that way all the time. We should be making it as easy as possible for people and bots to categorize correctly and to fnd the category they want. We do not have to match Wikipedia's names. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm adding a category, there's a drop-down list, which includes all the different possibilities based on whatever keyword I typed, including a separate entry for Georgia (State). Also, I don't agree that editors have to guess which category they are in by looking at images. The category page for the country of Georgia clearly states that it's a category for the country, not the state. Ultimately, it is the editor's responsibility to ensure that images are linked to the most appropriate category.--Satt 2 (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone sees those dropdown boxes: it depends on how you're adding the category. Bots certainly wouldn't see them. I didn't mean to say that people would be guessing which Georgia was meant. To guess, you have to know that there's more than one, which I suspect isn't the case with many people who are mostly familiar with one or the other. (Americans can be woefully ignorant of world geography, and I speak as an American.) That's not even mentioning readers whose English isn't good enough to understand the parent categories. I also wasn't referring only to adding categories: this is also an issue for people just using categories to find things. And you're right, it is editors' responsibility to get a category right, but we can help them along by eliminating ambiguities. Why would we not do that just because some of us can tell the difference the way things are? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Do you not agree that the setup on EN is US-centric? and we are a multi-language project not just an English one so even if the English Wikipedia has the basename as a DAB doesn't mean we should. We are talking about a country vs a subdiversion of a country. If Georgia had a state called "United States" should United States become a DAB? Indeed why isn't this titled Category:საქართველო? this probably indicates that globally this is the expected title. Indeed it is still called "Georgia" in some other languages (but not many[1]) and the average person would probably be looking for the country. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commons uses the English names for categories. This is because categories can only have one title, and using a single language ensures a consistent setup. One benefit to this is seen with cats like Category:Sports in Georgia, instead of the equivalent phrase in Georgian. The only real exception is with biology - which are at the scientific name not the common English name (eg Category:Orcinus orca).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The setup on English Wikipedia qualifies the titles for both, which I think is neutral, not US-centric. It would be US-centric if the unqualified name was for the US state. If there were something else called "United States", then, yes, I would think Category:United States should be a dab. I agree that we don't have to follow Wikipedia's usage, but in this case they happen to have things set up the way I think Commons should do it (both qualified). I guess I basically don't think Commons should have unqualified primary topics: it's clearer all around if the unqualified term is a dab, for reasons I explained above. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: "I basically don't think Commons should have unqualified primary topics" is a viewpoint I have a major issue with. If we did do that then we would need to move (for example) Category:United States because of the ship, Category:Science because of the journal and Category:Stars because of the Scottish village. I don't think anyone would seriously contemplate any of those changes - but the current situation for all of those is an "unqualified primary topic". The problem is where and how to draw the line: I know we have disagreed on several examples, but my positions have been "we should draw the line one way or the other in this case because of x" not "we shouldn't have a line at all".--Nilfanion (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you have a point. I think I only had in mind places, not other kinds of things. In some cases where there's a main topic (science, the country) and things are named for it (the journal, the ship), and the two aren't the same kind of thing, then it's reasonable for the main topic to be the primary topic. In your examples, a place and a ship are not the same kind of thing, nor are an area of study and a publication. In our current case, though, we're talking about two places, so there's more potential for confusion. Those of us having this discussion may understand that the country of Georgia is more worthy of being a primary topic, but we aren't the ones doing all the categorizing. We need to think of all the people -- and bots, too -- who categorize, and give them the best chance of getting it right. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case I agree with you :) Georgia, the country, is more significant and if I had to pick one to have at the base name, I'd choose that without question. However, I do not think the country is orders-of-magnitude more significant than the state, so dab is right way forward. If the US state was called something else, I wouldn't dab the country because of the other things that share the name. That's notwithstanding the fact some of the others, like Georgia, VT, are also places and are the same type of thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Maryland is disambiguated on this basis, its worth considering if all US states should be disambiguated - for the sake of consistency. I'd suggest (U.S. state) in preference to (state) for clarity. For the record, 35 are ambiguous with other populated places outside the state, 7 with other geographic features (mostly rivers) and only 8 do not share a name with another geographic feature.
And just to say I'd oppose disambiguating those with only minor issues like Maryland (whereas a significant conflict like GA, NY or MS? Sure).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(state) alone is insufficient to disambiguate the U.S. state from the country in the Caucase. The country is also a state by itself (not a federation, even if it has autonomous regions). "(U.S. state)" is accurate here. Today's country is also disambiguated with the former USSR republic or two other former independent countries (including a medieval kingdom), which are also taking their own disambiguating suffix. The Caucasian country existed long before the U.S. state was founded and named (at that time, the medieval kingdom had disappeared, but it reappeared as a country in 1918, before being absorbed by the USSR and becoming once again independent and taking back its historical name, as a republic rather than a kingdom; but the Georgian culture has never disappeared when the U.S. state was founded: this country of the Caucase and its culture has more than 1 millenium of history, 5 times more than the U.S. state, and its culture is named by UNESCO as World heritage, notably for its language, alphabets and importance in the Christian history in the Caucase, along with Armenia with which it was unified for a long time long before the USSR annexed it and before the Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire dismantled part of them, and still today Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan are threatening both countries and have partly invaded them). verdy_p (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just like to rule out natural disambiguation or comma space, like "Republic of Georgia" or "Georgia, Caucasus" for the country and "State of Georgia" for the U.S. state (there is more than 1 Georgia in the US so I wouldn't consider Georgia, United States). "Georgia" "country" gets 342,000,000 hits and "Georgia" "Caucasus" only gets 601,000 so probably parenthetical disambiguation is best. I wouldn't use natural as both appear to be obscure "Do not, however, use obscure" (w:WP:ATDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm very surprised that the country hasn't always been at the disambiguated location. I came here upon finding that a photo of a shop in the southeastern USA was improperly put into Category:Shops in Georgia, and I was expecting either to redirect that category to the properly named Category:Shops in Georgia (U.S. state) or to empty it because it's a disambiguation category; I had no idea that the country's category tree was located here. Either way, Americans may expect this category tree to be the US state, and one problem with the current setup is that US images put into this tree won't easily be found as they would be if they were put into disambiguation categories. Silly decisions are sometimes made at en:wp, but most of the time our categories should follow their naming, and I see no reason to rehash all the years of arguments at en:Talk:Georgia. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because its a country as opposed to a sub diversion of one. Did you think the country would be at "Sakartvelo" or "საქართველო"? In this case I agree disambiguation is the best option but surely the country is the best choice for Georgia if one is there though. The fact that the state has more images for shops that the country is additional evidence that the change is needed as, as you pointed out Americans are likely to miss-categorize. If I search for Georgia on Google I get information appearing for the country not the state on the top right, even though I look up American things sometimes but have never looked up things from the country. Crouch, Swale (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackcat: why do you deem Commons would become -centric? It would only cease to be -centric. For Rome, Georgia again – demography, political importance, and duration of history are really strong arguments for keeping the present status. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed @Incnis Mrsi: . You disambiguate when it's strictly necessary, not when an illiterate one cannot distinguish between Georgia, US State and Georgia, european country, or between Canton, China and Canton, Ohio. A regular user of Commons knows well the difference between the U.S. state and the former Soviet republic. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)08:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular wiki user working hard with categories on Commons I express a preference for systematic approach. When typing several category tags in HotCat in one minute, a contributor should not be compelled so solve puzzles. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And if we had categories in German or Danish, we might have had the state at the unqualified name for longer, the country is called other things in more languages than the state, we need to keep in mind readers/users of those languages as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
False equivalence. To almost everyone in the world (including the United States), "Rome" refers to the city in Italy. The city in Georgia has a population less than 0.1% of the country. Whereas, the U.S. state of Georgia has a larger population, area, and economy than the country of Georgia, and several hundred million people may have heard of the state but not the country. Of course, still probably more people in the world have heard about the country, but we're not deciding between the country and the U.S. state; we're deciding between the country and disambiguation, which only requires that there exist significant confusion. There is significant risk that uploaders of images of the U.S. state will accidentally use categories for the country in the current setup, a risk that doesn't exist for Rome, Georgia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠19:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The word “Georgia” for a country in the Caucasus is an artificial construct resulted from attempt to Europeanize the Persian exonym “George-stan” used by some (even not all!) its neighbours. The endonym of the country is
ქართული: საქართველო
(translit: “Sakartvelo”) – nowhere close to “Georgia” even if drop “სა-” meaning “the place of”. Its other exonyms are:
Аԥсшәа: Қырҭтәыла
(“ķɨrţtwɨla” — roughly the same as the endonym),
Русский: Грузия
(“Gruzia”; similar to Persian but distinct enough), and
Հայերեն: Վրաստան
(“Vrastan”). On the other hand, the U.S. state is really named “Georgia”, was always named such, and is known under this name in the Americas, or certainly across the North America at least. But nobody presses for priority of the American state over Caucasian country, only for approximate parity between two entities. This change will also rectify problems with {{Countries of Europe}} existing due to ambiguity. The software support for “first try «Georgia (country)» then fall back to «Georgia»” is already deployed in sandbox. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would completely agree if we were proposing to move the US state to the unqualified name but all we are saying here is it should be a DAB because globally "Georgia" is likely to refer to both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I will note that English Wikipedia currently disambiguates the term: Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). In comparison to English Wikipedia, Commons has two main differences, one in favor of the country and one in favor of disambiguation. On the one hand, Commons is an international project, so a non-English-speaking country intuitively would have more "weight" than a subdivision of an English-speaking country compared to English Wikipedia. On the other hand, as explained at Commons:Category disambiguation, categories are not articles, and should be held to a far higher standard for primary topic. If a reader searches for a title on Wikipedia and lands on an article they didn't expect, it's not a big deal, the right one is just a few clicks away. But if uploaders accidentally use the wrong category, it creates a lot of work for people to clean up. Categories are workhorses and aren't meant to look pretty; reducing the error rate and making their scope clear is more important than things like conciseness and political correctness. On the balance I find the second difference more compelling, so I would argue that there is even more reason to disambiguate on Commons than on English Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠19:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And another in favour is that in some languages (such as German) the state is called Georgia but the country is called something else. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Georgia" has many meaning, not just the Caucasian country name or the US state name. It is most a first name for a woman. It is a title of a samous song (now the official anthemn of the US state). It is the name of various other items (iuncluding ships). In commons we should disambiguate as much as possible and avoid mixing everything in the category for the Caucasian country (notablywhen files are imported): it's best if importers really must specify and not assume anything about the intended meaning of the single amsbiguous terme "Georgia": if users don't choose, it's best to have their files fall into a category where they'll be easily located, and marked for recategorization (or recategorized properly).And there's no evident priority to grant to the Caucasian country or to the US state (both are very wellknown, and have frequent usages) or something else (a song, some ship, a first name, including queens, authors or other celibrities...). verdy_p (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having a Georgia (country) category will reduce miscategorization by uploaders who currently assume Georgia is intended for something other than the country. Waz8 (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
both topics are equally famous. using "georgia" for the country will inevitably let files from usa be constantly mis-categorised, requiring unnecessary curation work to move them to the correct cats for the american state. RZuo ([[User talk:RZuo
Strong oppose to the whole affair, as per Satt2 and Tm above. Also adding that: a) No other extant country is disambiguated on the top level, unless you count the Kongos and the Koreas (e.g.), which get differentiated against other top-level countries and without brackets. b) Commons serves all Wikipedia communities. en-WP shouldn't dictate how Commons works, most other languages do not disambiguate this: English and French are the largest exceptions, and yes I checked all language versions. c) such a huge change will benefit nobody - it's not as if the US-state is easier to link and categorize this way. Only Georgia becomes harder to properly categorize. Yes, miscategorizations occur of course, but it's not too hard to correct them, and other stuff constantly gets miscategorized as well. Thanks for re-opening this debate, by the way. --Enyavar (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-openingWait I just saw this came up at COM:VP and was flabbergasted to see how this was closed. How in the world this got decided as a consensus when there are a large number of users who voiced a range of reasons in opposition to the proposal boggles my mind. In the case of a long-running and clearly contentious discussion, there are several appropriate steps to getting consensus on at least some elements of the proposal, but none of that was done here. Thus I am reopening the CfD as improperly closed. The following needs to be done before this can be appropriately closed:
A summary proposal should be presented which includes any elements the proposing user feels there is valid consensus for, laying out exactly what is agreed upon, and how, in detail, it is to be implemented.
Recognition of opposing points that have been raised, either by excluding elements that are opposed from the final proposal, by showing how such opposition has been taken into account in adjusting the final proposal, or at a minimum explaining why the consensus is still valid and the proposal should move forward despite the opposing points.
Ping previous participants in the discussion, alerting them to the summary, especially including all participants who voiced dissenting opinions.
Give sufficient time for participants to comment on the proposed conclusion. This is especially important for a long-running discussion or one with a significant period of inactivity, as not all participants may be as active, or as engaged on the issue, any more and will need time to get the notification and reacquaint themselves with the subject again. For a discussion such as this one, at least a month should be permitted before implementing a solution.
Only if there is truly broad consent for the proposed conclusion should it be proceeded with. If opposition remains, the conclusion should be further refined to account for recent comments and the process repeated.
The fact that a discussion is long-running and seemingly intractable is never a reason to bully through a conclusion. If consensus cannot be achieved, then the proposal should not be adopted.
When a discussion with this much involvement is closed, it is important to close it properly, notify participants, and post it on the affected category talk pages.
Essentially, none of the above steps were done in this case. Closing a discussion like this without the above steps gives the idea that it was done sneakily in an attempt to get it through under the noses of those who have taken the time and effort to voice their concerns or opposition to such a proposal. I trust that this is not the actual intention of the user who closed this discussion, but it is important to take the extra effort to maintain the integrity of the CfD process and ensure that CfD conclusions remain respected by the Commons community. My re-opening of this discussion is not a rebuke of the user in question, and is not about them at all, nor is it a rejection of the proposed conclusion, being personally not sure whether I have any opinion one way or the other on the matter. It is merely an insistence that CfD conclusions actually reflect the true consensus of their participants and that integrity of the CfD process be upheld. If this goes through the steps above and results in consensus, I'm happy to lend a hand to implementation. Josh (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all of the 1000s of sub-categories of Category:Georgia to include "(country)" dab
Change all templates which create links to Category:Georgia or any of its 1000s of sub-categories to work with the "(country)" dab
There are probably other aspects I am missing in the above list. If anyone wants to add to this list above, or modify and re-package the proposal below for consideration, feel free to do so. Josh (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first 2 items, which have been done, are easy. #3 and #4 require significantly more effort and an organized approach which was briefly mentioned earlier but seemingly never seriously addressed, leaving currently 1000s of mis-matched names and template errors to clean up. Planning for this needs to be part of any accepted proposal. Josh (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reopening the discussion. I have already set "Georgia" as an alias of "Georgia (country)" in {{Country label}} as part of the cleanup. Once the cleanup is complete, the alias will be removed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the discussion. I approve the change (not just for geographic/political importance, but because it is before all a name for people and many other things; adding the disambiguation prefix to the country, just like with the US state, and all other topics is correct; the unqualified title should have always been a disambiguation page, given the number of topics covered, independently of their "importance", which is highly biased by point of views of various users from different regions; Commons is international (and multilingual) and does not need to focus the relative importance an a specific region or culture). verdy_p (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while parenthetical disambiguation is never used for any country other than Georgia, avoiding such disambiguation is not really a rule. If a new well-recognized country, named like a well-known country subdivision, is ever created in the future, such country can take the parenthetical disambiguator. Of course such chance is extremely slim, given the international law. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 First, thank you for your understanding with this process. I agree that dabbing a current country like this is not a violation of any rule, but it is unprecedented so I understand why folks might be hesitant to go there. We do dab a few countries, such as Republic of Ireland or State of Palestine, by using their full name, but this doesn't apply for Georgia since the country was very clear in 1995 that it was no longer Republic of Georgia, but just Georgia. Additionally, those names are eponymous with the larger region they are part of, which isn't germane to the Georgia discussion. I don't think of this process as us passing judgement on what is 'important' or not, though leaving one category undabbed while all others are dabbed does open the door to that interpretation, which we should avoid. I share concerns over the uniqueness of this situation, because unique situations are inevitably gotchas for unaware users and I believe that either dabbing or not is not going to appreciably change the fact that users will need to learn the uniqueness of this situation before they can reliably use these categories correctly. Thus, at the moment, I remain undecided on which is the best way forward. Josh (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: Ehr... I don't see all that clear consent. I see rather a split consensus, which suggests to put the question aside for some year (all in all this discussion has lasted 7 years for deciding nothing) and get back when ideas will be clearer. We don't have to reach a conclusion whatever it takes. -- Blackcat18:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ah I forgot: please restore "Georgia" as the country, because you don't have the consensus to move. Not, at least, before pinging all the participants to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat (talk • contribs) 18:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't have a strong opinion on how this should go, but I'd be interested in knowing: given the longstanding lack of a disambiguator, how often do photographs of the U.S. state of Georgia end up in the categories for the country of Georgia? If the answer is, effectively, "a lot", then the parenthetical word is probably a good idea, because sorting it through will be less work than the ongoing fixing of miscategorized photos. Otherwise, I would not add the disambiguating parenthetical word. - Jmabel ! talk18:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak about "Old maps of Georgia" which is what I deal with a lot, and I found it happening occasionally. I sorted hundreds of maps, and can distinctly remember finding material less than a dozen of times? Surprisingly, I once also found it the other way around, because a subsubsubcategory was existing for "1777 maps of Georgia (U.S. state)" but not for "1777 maps of Georgia" (example year).
I suppose it happens most often with the top-level category "Georgia", because inexperienced editors place stuff there - but we can't see that behaviour right now, of course. --Enyavar (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mis-categorization can also happen as a result of a dab, versus a redirect. I believe that the upload script has a warning if you target a dab, but users can click through that easily enough. Hotcat is worse, in that it has no resistance at all to adding a dab category to a file. Of course, dabs with files get flagged for maintenance more easily than US photos in the country's category would, but it is still a maintenance load, so dab is not a cure-all for mis-categorization. Josh (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB That's a good plan, I will try and encapsulate it into a proposal on Commons talk:Categories for discussion and hopefully at least some of it can make it to the published guidelines. Also, +1 for getting cat-a-lot working correctly again...it is making routine maintenance anything but at times. Josh (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been open for more than 7 years and as far as I can see there is a rough consensus to move though I would as requested address the reasons in opposition for moving but otherwise I don't think we need to keep this open any longer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush to action. There is a good discussion currently going, so we certainly do not need to curtail that. Not all users have the same activity rate, so there is indeed value to giving time for others to participate. Josh (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think there's still anything to discuss, or the original closure has any problem. what's all this waste of time?
just take a look at Category:Georgia (country) and it's so easy to spot many things that dont belong there, because they were just moved from Category:Georgia blindly. and these files are still misplaced there despite constant recategorisation effort.
is it a problem when for example Category:Bo, Sierra Leone is the 2nd largest city of the country with 200k population but is not titled Category:Bo?
if some people dont like parentheses so much, the two cats can be titled "Georgia, Eurasia" and "Georgia, United States". RZuo (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all people recognize Eurasia as a continent, so the better, non-parenthetical name would be "Georgia, Caucasus". I thought the official name would be "Republic of Georgia" (or something), but it is not mentioned in the lead of Georgia (country), so it is not an option. On the other hand, two U.S. states have already used parenthetical disambiguators, like New York (state), Washington (state), so there is no problem with the name Georgia (U.S. state). Actually many of us have been Wikipedia users, and Wikipedia's naming conventions don't permit us to use parenthetical disambiguators too much in article names. So we don't like to name categories with parentheses, following the usual naming conventions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side fact, the Bengali Wikipedia article on the country of Georgia uses (রাষ্ট্র) (romanized rāṣṭra) as the parenthetical disambiguator, which means "(sovereign) state". While "country" means দেশ (romanized deś) in Bengali, we tend to avoid the term in favor of রাষ্ট্র for being more unambiguous, especially as the term রাষ্ট্র does not refer to the Constituent states, for which we use রাজ্য (romanized rājya, literally "kingdom"). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implement the 4 Proposed actions described above. It's the correct thing to do and aligns Commons with Wiki.
without disambiguation, files from usa will keep getting misplaced into "georgia" on each and every level when users use uploadwizard, hotcat, catalot, etc.
those files will sit there waiting for other users to pass by, spot the mistakes and finally make extra effort to rectify them.
we can also imagine that this burden is mostly unnecessarily borne by georgian users, because categories about their country are usually watched and managed by them.
why do some users want to put the burden of recategorisation on the limited manpower that's already stretched? or will they promise they will watch thousands of categories of "georgia" and take on the job of recategorisation by themselves?--RZuo (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no burdern and no emergency. It is important however for Causcasian Georgian users (whose manpower is very stretched), whereas the US users can support this task easily and once this work is done, it stays for good and for long for everyone (including those not in US or in the Caucase). US users are hugely manpowered, and can easily complete this cleanup task (including with the additional help of users from other areas that have understood the issue, and those working on other non-geographic "Georgia" topics) in a relatively small time, even if it's done incrementally by all of them. The more we progress on this cleanup, the less we'll have confusion and the more our data will be usable by everyone (and with less and easier maintenance after that, thanks to the tracking DAB if there are still errors). Wikimedia will play here its educative role to avoid/signal possible biases and false assumptions, educating them that "Georgia" alone is ambiguous when isolated out of any context. Caucasian Georgians users will also have a stable base to work with, in their small community, without having their content constantly "polluted" by unrelated US topics or putting a strong brake to their difficult progress. verdy_p (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a question of "burden" or "emergengency". Whereas I am dubious about disambiguating the Wikicommons entry of a sovereign country, I would nevertheless not be entirely against “Georgia (country)”.
The problem is that changing such a name requires a SHEER consensus which, at the state, is still not clear: I wouldn't want that a Georgian (from the European Georgia) Wikipedian or Wikicommoner may think that, just because their country happened to be namesake of an US State, then they can be belittled and undergo a decision with little consensus. We have the time to find a large consensus on whatever solution. -- Blackcat18:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers are 12 (including the nominator) against 7 right now, or 63%. This is a normal community process and not an RfA requiring a supermajority consensus; in these cases, 63% is typically enough to declare a consensus, so the burden of proof is on those believing there is no consensus to explain why the "support" !votes are on average weaker than the "oppose" !votes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠18:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i would not count the nominal numbers, bur rather look at the number of arguments.
opposition to disambiguation boils down to two arguments: georgia (the country) gets more website visitors, and commons is not us-centric.
both arguments dont hold. and the opposition has never come up with any remedy for the problem of american files constantly misplaced in georgian categories.
by the time i first responded (7 February 2023) i would have closed this, but foreseeing users like these i chose instead to add 1 more vote with arguments. RZuo (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for the delayed response. At the time this discussion was reopened, I had just begun making a change affecting 120 EnWiki articles, then needed a break! I still favor disambiguation for the country (and would for the US state, if it were the primary topic) as I did when this discussion initially opened. Each has significant enough notability that neither should be unqualified. If this is ultimately the outcome, I would gladly assist in renaming the set of "Georgia" categories to "Georgia (country)" ones. I realize this is a sizable task, however, it will eventually get completed. In the long term, this would greatly reduce or possibly even eliminate the amount of work needed by users to recategorize media from the US state of Georgia that is mistakenly uploaded into categories for the country of Georgia. Waz8 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the category has been turned into a dab page. Although not by me, but I'm closing this as done per the consensus since it doesn't seem like there's anything else to do here.
Support All items in Category:Military of the Bahamas also belong in Category:Royal Bahamas Defence Force, so the former category is superfluous. Keep a redirect of course for ease of use. However, if anyone finds media of Bahamian military subjects that are not of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, then the former category should be retained for those items and the RBDF put under it. Josh (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the same MediaWIki extention across all projects, so better would be a category structure which is "Search bar on Wikipedia" or "Search on Wikidata" etc. and a main cat for the "CirrusSearch" extension. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about the search bar but the entire search system / search engine such as how relevant items are found and ranked and so on. Wikipedia search is a subcat as it should be and I think the discussion can be closed. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no overreaching consensus about the new name of the category. Since it covers more than just the search bar, the default is to keep the category name as it is. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
@Themightyquill: It seems to be a part of the SMOM. Perhaps, invites to this discussion should be posted onto the SMOM Wikipedia Talk page. It seems a very complicated subject for what is the world's smallest sovereign entity. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now, by fraternity sounds wierd for convents, since nuns aren't really fratres. Would it be better to rename both categories to by religious order? See also:
Fraternity actually works for convents in a lot of cases where the convents are under the auspices of a male order. However, I'd be fine with using "religious order" instead.
For your number 2, those could both be correct. The second one (monastery churches) doesn't specify a denomination, so it could include non-Catholic monastery churches. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged some of the categories involved to invite further comment. 1) If "religious order" is accurate and gender neutral, I think it would be preferable. 2) I agree with Auntof6, even if it may seem redundant at times. 3) Those are syonyms, I take it? I have no idea. Whatever collective base category is chosen, however, it doesn't necessarily have to apply to individual monasteries. If Category:Vincentian Monastery in Bydgoszcz is generally known by that name, you don't necessarily need to change it to "Lazarist Monastery in Bydgoszcz". - Themightyquill (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. So, 1) Redirection of categories to religious order. 2) If I understand Roman Catholic churches in X should be a subcategory of Monastery churches in X. Other subcategory could be for example Ortodox churches in X by religious order. That means that Franciscan churches in X can only be in the Roman Catholic category, not in Monastery churches at the same time. One more thing: I'm thinking to create a special category of Roman Catholic convent churches in X by religious order which would be a subcategory of Roman Catholic churches in X by religius order. It's the same structure as Convents in X by religius order is a subcategory of Monasteries in X by religius order. 3) Probably (I'm not sure) the most common adjective is vencentian, so vincentian churches, monasteries, provinces. Yes, individual monastery can retain his original adjective in his name. --Janezdrilc (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your comment that "Roman Catholic churches in X should be a subcategory of Monastery churches in X". That logic doesn't follow since not all Roman Catholic churches are monastery churches. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see, there should be categories by denomination and by country for monateries and monastery churches:
That looks good, but doesn't give a term to use if we want to group by fraternity/order. Aren't there fraternities other than Franciscans anbd Cistercians, and mightn't we want to group them at some point? Further notes:
All current uses of the term "denomination" in the religious sense are for subdivisions of Christianity (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/05/Categories by faith), so maybe "Monasteries by denomination" should be "Monasteries by religion" (because it includes non-Christian monasteries). There could be a subcat for Christian monasteries by denomination if needed.
There are also some categories for monasteries by order (also abbeys and abbots). They should be renamed to match whatever is decided here.
@Auntof6: Sorry for missunderstanding. I put in the upper list just two of orders, franciscans and cistercians - just to represent the concept. So, there should also be included benedictines, augustinians, jesuits and others. Convents (for women) are in a special subgroup. I agree about "religion" instead of "denomination" for above-christian categories. What exactly do you mean with categories for monasteries that should be renamed in some cases? Similar to User:Themightyquill's post (of March 11)? --Janezdrilc (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some notes to the proposal:
"By denomination" is not the best word for the Christian monasteries. "Denomination" is a word related prevalently to protestant groups or movements, while monasteries are prevalently catholic or orthodox.
category tree uses standardly metacategories "by order" or "by fraternity". This level of metacategories is important because we have monasteries paralelly categorized by location (by province, by region...), possibly by architectural style, by century of founding etc. It's not forethoughtful to put "Franciscan monasteries" directly into "Roman Catholic monasteries" as proposed.
The distinction between "monasteries" and "convents" is misleading because many national, local or order nomenclatures don't follow such a distinction: some languages use identical word for both types, and the word "convent" is often used also for monasteries for men (what about ?. To use categorization terms dependent on language is problematic for interwikis. We need primarily umbrella (common) categories covering both types (male and female establishments); subcategories for the male and female ones can be additional. --ŠJů (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About monastery vs. convent. I think it's not really important what the convent (or konvent) means in some language. We have to seek only English usage of a term. As I compare different English dictionaries, they mostly agree convent is a monastery for women. I suppose this term is suitable for our categorisation.
I'm closing this CfD as "no consensus." as well as to long to get anything useful out of. Anyone who disagrees with the outcome is free to open a new CfD with a summary of the main points and a clear path forward.
This subject grows ever more complex as study shows that 'cup-and-rings' are just one glyph of many and that the term does not cover them all. 'Cups' exist without rings and indeed often they are unaccompanied by 'cups with rings', also at Ballochmyle the unique (in a Scottish context) 'squares with cups' are found. I also need to post the category 'circles with stars' as they are quite different from any other category. The term 'Glyph' or 'petroglyph' would equate to the way 'cup and ring' is being used on Wikimedia and is redundant as an attempt to create a 'catch all' category.
These symbols or glyphs have meanings and as such they can't be lumped together any more that the letters of the alphabet could all be placed in the category 'Z'. Users of Wikimedia will be unaware on the whole of the in depth study of this topic and inevitably will plump for 'cup and ring' in error.
If there was a very large number of images added, it might make sense to sub-categorize in any variety of ways. But there's no point in doing so premptively. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this as stale since no one has commented in at least a few years and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change things anyway. That said, I think the suggestion made by @Themightyquill: in their last comment makes sense. I'm just not going to make the changes myself since no one ever approved them. Anyone else is free to do so if they feel like it though, but this CfD is clearly dead outside of that as things currently stand with it.
Yes, especially if there are no non-print files for the views. The files here should go under the subcategory for the specific view if one exists (or if we want to create it), or under the main category. And what's with the sorting under numbers in the main category? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we must take care to change the template. Perhaps we can keep and accomplish the a-z sorting with a linked legend by numbers. Also the Gallery Files should be linked to the categories. There are two ways of sorting the series, e.g. normally The Great Wave is the first, with the template and therefore for this category it is Nr. 21, in 36 Views of Mount Fuji it is sorted by 2, any experts?--Oursana (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait, as the numbers are the better system, see this cat and in contrary the lists in the diff. language versions--Oursana (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zolo: as creator of the template, can you help. If this cat is only because of the different sorting we could show the two sorting systems in the gallery, ia there reference about the sorting?--Oursana (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this as "no consensus" since there doesn't seem to be any agreement about how to fix it. Plus it seems like the issue with the template would have to be worked out before anything else is changed anyway. My suggestion is to do that and then start a new CfD that summaries the main points and provides a workable solution. I don't really see a way forward with where things currently stand though.
Keep Category "Woodblock Prints" represent a printing technique that is as valid a category as Engravings, Etchings, or Lithographs. The term "woodcuts" is related, but never used to describe the multi-colored Japanese prints. If a change is to be made, Woodcuts should be a subcategory of Woodblock Prints. Wmpearl (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be merged to its parent, Category:E set domains? Usually separating things into an "other" category is discouraged, but I'm not familiar enough with this topic to know if there's a special reason this one should remain. Auntof6 (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of images created with Android Camera aren't in this category; the vast majority of panoramas created with it aren't in the child category. Is it worth having around? grendel|khan23:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. Sorting media to categories in commons is a process, a process taking time. You can help driving this process. The problem you identified may exist and there may be more than one solution to it. Not giving users access to the images by method taken makes commons less useful. Commons is about choices and offering service to its users whereas the category system is one way to access media.
Stripping the category in question from the category system simply means stripping one path to the images, users may choose to take. Since there are many Created with .. categories around, it seems counter-intuitive to delete the one that would hold a substantial amount, if the majority of related images already was accordingly categorized.
One could argue that commons users do not pursue correctly categorizing these, because of lack of manpower or interest, but then this is a slightly different issue to discuss and we would need to keep in mind, that the category was (unfortunately) not around when it should have been around (when the first image taken with an android phone was uploaded). So, hypothetically, if the upload wizard offered a checkbox option to categorize newly uploaded media by Created with .. categories, then, if uploaders were to use that feature from now on, it might only be a matter of time until the mass of (uncategorized) images gets statistically insignificant. But this is not now. At this moment the category you question is really an option on the future (as many under-populated categories are). --Cmuelle8 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know if a photo was taken by Android Camera? It's not in the exif data, is it? If that information can't be ascertained from the image itself, it's not a lack of effort by commons users -- every photographer would need to add that category themself from their own knowledge. The information wouldn't be available for images from Flickr or other sources. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through some photos (exiftool IMG_*|grep ^Software|sort|uniq) all taken with various iterations of Android Camera on Nexus phones over the last five and a half years, I see: GRJ90, GWK74, IML70C, etc. (Android OS builds), Google and Picasa in a few cases (I think those may have been edited using the in-camera tools or those in the Photos web interface?), and, for example, HDR+ 1.0.86512597, which is the version of the in-camera HDR software used, also indicating use of the Android Camera app. Panoramas (PANO_*) don't have anything in the software field, though, which seems less useful. grendel|khan17:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can't always tell from the EXIF, I guess--pictures could be edited in Photoshop, and that would change the 'Software' field. I see categories like Category:Acquired with Google PhotoScan or Category:Acquired with Paper Camera Android app, and I think the distinction is between 'created with' and 'acquired with'. Android Camera is the default camera app on Android cameras (we're certainly not distinguishing between versions of the Camera app here); I'd imagine that if we're going to track this sort of thing, it should just be the default for images created with Android cameras, and we'd have categories for third-party camera apps if necessary. grendel|khan17:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm asking is, if I use the same phone to take a photo with Android Camera software and a third-party camera app, will it result in a different photo? Or is it just the user-interface that would be different? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this as "no consensus" since it doesn't seem like there's a consensus to change anything. Nor is it even really clear what change is being proposed. At the end of the day this type of information should really just be stored as structured data, but we aren't there yet. I suggest nominating this and similar categories for deletion if or when we do get there though.
Term is highly ambiguous, with two primary meanings (public baths - the existing content - and bathtubs). Some of existing subcats are types of tub and not types of building (eg Whirlpool baths), and some subcats are something else entirely (Bird baths). Suggest converting Category:Baths into a disambiguation, and move current content to Category:Public bathsNilfanion (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO a bird bath is not a bath tub, but a garden ornament; so should be listed separately. Foot baths look complicated, as Category:Ashiyu are public baths, but many of the images in the root category are of tubs/basins.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this as "no consensus." Since it doesn't seem like there's any agreement about if it's a problem to begin with. Let alone does there even seem to be an implementable solution. Anyone who disagrees is free to start another CfD at a future date that summaries the main points of this one and provides a clear path forward. Although IMO if this is discussed again the conversation should probably take place a little further up the category structure. Since it doesn't seem to be an issue specific to "baths" per se.
This category consists almost entirely of images from Bollywood Hungama. As per Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama, photographs of non-Indian events are not free for using here, so the images must be deleted. I can't find a way to nominate them all at once for deletion, so I thought this would help. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, Thryduulf. Why did you choose to transfer the images to St Mary Bourne St rather than the other way around? As far as I can tell, it's known as St Mary's Bourne St so surely the correct category should reflect this? Diliff (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the destination category as it is older and was (slightly) better categorised. I have no objection to the other category being selected as the one to remain if it is better named - we just don't need two of them. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a category that matches the English article and the name their own website uses is probably the way to go. Just because something existed first, doesn't mean it is correct. Commons categories are littered with poorly conceived names. ;-) But thanks for at least letting me know about it so I could give you my two cents. Diliff (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for more input. I don't want to move everything one way only to find later that I need to move it back or move it to a third location. Also, an admin will need to come along at some point and delete whatever category is not chosen as the one to use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, I assume no input was forthcoming. The categories have been in limbo for some time. I still feel the images should be moved back again to the original category. Diliff (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, nobody else has replied at all :( I'm not going to have time to do anything with this for a couple of days so if you want to go ahead and move everything to the better named category, fix the categorisation of that one (if that hasn't already been done), and get an admin to sort the rest out then go ahead. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 that sounds like a good plan. @Diliff hasn't contributed since 2020 and @Kelly since 2018, so it's unlikely they'll have further comment so I'd just go ahead and move the files and then mark the other two categories as redirects. If you don't feel comfortable doing that then start a new discussion, that has a greater chance of new input than this years old one. Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Themightyquill : I can see that it might seem strange. The Cornell Library has uploaded some images from its archives. I'm trying to distinguish images taken of events it has sponsored from images it has uploaded. But in this case, the Cornell art museum also hosted the event, so it might be a good idea to separate. Unionpearl (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the other side, Panoramic paintings is associated with
big round paintings
On the English Wikipedia, Cyclorama is a panoramic image, whereas Panoramic paintings are massive artworks. The word has then been used for the building.
On the French Wikipedia, Cyclorama redirects to Panorama (peinture). « Un panorama (...) parfois aussi appelé cyclorama (...) ».
These terms may have been used differently in different places, at different times, by different entertainment companies.
The Category:Panorama buildings is clearly for buildings, which may be used for both aims (paintings or optical images).
I merged Category:Illustrations of felines to Felidae because I found it redundant, and I'm doing the same for other common names. Common names are nonspecific, sometimes arbitrary, and hard to deal with for non-English-speaking users, so we should minimize their use. Zoological illustrations are in the "(taxon) in art" categories, but they are a specific type of art so they are separated. I don't know what to do with the "drawings of (taxon)" categories, but I put drawings there that are not scientific zoological illustrations.
Dobrý den
Nejsem proti, když dáte jiný název. Český název pro dláždění přesně zní Kočičí hlavy. Jde o část historických cest a chodníků. Zde File:Havlickuv Brod Cobblestone.jpg
Z projektu Wikimedia Commons (Autor che
(Prosím uvádět jako „Petr Novák, Wikipedie“, pokud toto užijete mimo projekty Wikimedia.) Kontroloval jsem tento název. Je možné se obrátit na dotaz autora che .
S pozdravem Pohled 111.Themightyquill--Pohled 111 (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Pohled 111: original nomination is not correct anymore, because the nominated category contains files outside Czech (the hatnote may also be not suitable anymore). But the merging of the nominated category remains. Merging definitely not with Category:Cobblestones, but merging to other two above-mentioned categories may be rational?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Deleted by Jcb. --Achim (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete Amusing, but not useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Support Move to Category:Museum of Folk Architecture and Life, Uzhhorod. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Kept, no acceptance. --Achim (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep Please see Category:Authors from …. --.js 13:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on July 4. So, deaths of July 4 does have some relevance. The enormity of the task shouldn't really be an issue. They will populate gradually over time. Evrik (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Too restrictive, would eliminate the majority of the current use of these categories. Example: In Category:Aircraft of the United Kingdom, 158 of its current 161 direct subcategories would have to be removed because they are not limited to aircraft belonging to the United Kingdom or to British companies or organizations. Besides, ownership is a difficult basis to use, because often it is unknown, or even in contravention of what is visible in the media. What we really mean most of the time is not 'owned by', but instead, 'in the colors of'. If an American museum owns and displays a Spitfire in RAF colors, should a user be able to find a picture of that aircraft (see image at right) by looking under 'Aircraft of the United Kingdom'? Common sense would say yes, but it isn't owned by the United Kingdom, so according to this proposal, the answer would would no. Josh (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
See also: Category talk:Georgia. 
Neutral
Weak support
-centric? It would only cease to be 
-centric. For Rome, Georgia again – demography, political importance, and duration of history are really strong arguments for keeping the present status. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Strong support for disambiguation. Enwiki en:Georgia is a DAB. Rational is to follow enwiki solution--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Strong oppose to the whole affair, as per Satt2 and Tm above. Also adding that: a) No other extant country is disambiguated on the top level, unless you count the Kongos and the Koreas (e.g.), which get differentiated against other top-level countries and without brackets. b) Commons serves all Wikipedia communities. en-WP shouldn't dictate how Commons works, most other languages do not disambiguate this: English and French are the largest exceptions, and yes I checked all language versions. c) such a huge change will benefit nobody - it's not as if the US-state is easier to link and categorize this way. Only Georgia becomes harder to properly categorize. Yes, miscategorizations occur of course, but it's not too hard to correct them, and other stuff constantly gets miscategorized as well. Thanks for re-opening this debate, by the way. --Enyavar (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Wait I just saw this came up at COM:VP and was flabbergasted to see how this was closed. How in the world this got decided as a consensus when there are a large number of users who voiced a range of reasons in opposition to the proposal boggles my mind. In the case of a long-running and clearly contentious discussion, there are several appropriate steps to getting consensus on at least some elements of the proposal, but none of that was done here. Thus I am reopening the CfD as improperly closed. The following needs to be done before this can be appropriately closed:
18:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
