Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in December 2018.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/12.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2018-12.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:A-4A Skyhawk (flat list)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Flat categories.

In discussion with Cobatfor (talk · contribs) it became clear there is desire for a category which can display all media of an aircraft type without having to wade through sub-categories which may have only a few images each. This is particularly true with aircraft registrations as they can often have only one or two images for a particular aircraft, but their creation and structure is established practice for aircraft. Having a flat list category with all media of the aircraft regardless of categorization offers a possible solution. Leaving them in the parent category does not work because it is a COM:OVERCAT violation and a well meaning soul will come by and fix that, sorting them back into their sub-cats (or at least removing the extra listing). Does a flat list category work? If we use it, what should it be named? Category:A-4A Skyhawk (flat list) has been created as an example/test of this approach, name and sorting can be refined. Josh (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superb idea! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It just came to my mind that there could also just be a category "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (flat list)", as every aircraft only has one registration number. The exception in all U.S. Navy aircaft are (as far as I know) only a few AV-8B Harriers which received a new BuNo after a modernization. Cobatfor (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobatfor: Your responses above were only on my talk page, but looked like they belonged here, so I copied them over. I wanted to keep it limited for the example category, so that is why I stuck to 'A-4A' instead of the whole 'A-4' category. Of course, you are correct, this could be done at whatever level makes sense for the number of media involved. Josh (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Flat list" is usually for a list of categories without images, and you've done the reverse. Wouldn't a gallery at A-4a Skyhawk work better for this purpose? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Yeah, I was at a loss for the right words, and as I said, some other wording may be more appropriate. As for a gallery, it does not serve the purpose really, as they are for showing a curated selection of images, not all images of a subject. Josh (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "(all images)" would be more appropriate in terms of wording. I'm not saying I think this is a good idea though. I certainly wouldn't want to see it for all types of planes. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobatfor: Do you have any objection to Themightquill's suggestion? If not, I suggest this be closed with consensus to permit an (all images) index category when appropriate, but to use this practice sparingly. Josh (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Happy New Year, by the way :-). I am a little at loss. What exactly is now planned? Thank you. Cobatfor (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers and thank you! I'm not sure that I plan on doing anything in particular, but in cases where you think a grouping of all images is appropriate, you can create say, Category:Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (all images) and add any image depicting an A-4 to that category. Leave them in their existing categorized structure (by registration, etc.). Does this work to meet your concerns? `Josh (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope I understand that proposal. I would not think that Category:Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (all images) would be appropriate, as then we have hundereds of images in one category. For example, the U.S. Navy bot-uploads filled the categories of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with thousands of photos. I still don't understand, why aircraft registration categories cannot be exempted from the redundancy rule, as it is seldom the case that you have more than one photo of an aircraft.Cobatfor (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought that is what you were suggesting when you said "It just came to my mind that there could also just be a category "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (flat list)"..." It sounds like we are on the verge of making the perfect the enemy of the good here. You can say it is an exemption all you like but that still won't stop well-meaning editors from undoing your work trying to fix what would commonly be seen as an overcat violation, unaware of the special case, unless you are going to add special headers to all of the thousands upon thousands of affected categories to explain the situation, which I don't think is a workable or good idea. Special exemptions complicate everyone's work as it is one more thing to trip over in the normal course of editing. Josh (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope, I got that right (as a non-English-native speaker): You propose to put all (for example) Douglas A-4 Skyhawk photos in one mega-category and piecemeal the category on the other hand into 2960 single BuNo categories? I still think either is not useful. One category is too big, the other is too small. If you think that you have to press every aircaft photo into a zillions of single registration categories, that may be then. I would think it is more of a task to categorize the USN categories that were blown up with thousands of photos by bot-uploads. Automatic categorization led to the state that we have now, that thousands of photos ate in categories just because the word is somewhere in the description. As to the aircraft registration issue, if I got your idea right, I sadly cannot support it. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobatfor: Sorry, you lost me. I'm not making a proposal to create any particular category. The one I used as an example was one you said would be one you might want. But if now you don't want it, forget I mentioned it. As for an aircraft registration issue, I have no idea what issue you are referring to or what it is you are not supporting, since I don't see anyone suggesting changing the rules about aircraft registrations. Could you please clarify, 1) Would being able to use a category such as Category:A-4A Skyhawk (all images) address your concerns? 2) If not, do you have an alternate proposal to address the problems you have with existing practices? Josh (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Sorry, I really lost you. I thought you would propose a category "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (all images). I am definitely okay with Category:A-4A Skyhawk (all images), Category:A-4B Skyhawk (all images) etc. The other proposal I had was that we would create a separate category "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk by registration" only for BuNo categories without differing by model and leave the model categories as they are. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobatfor: No problem, I understand the confusion. We already have 'by registration' categories (e.g. Category:Boeing 747-400 by registration) but those do not remove the registration category from the sub-model (e.g. Category:Boeing 747-400ER). Category:VH-OEE (aircraft) is under both Category:Boeing 747-400 by registration and Category:Boeing 747-400ER. If you remove it from the Category:Boeing 747-400ER, someone will just add it back to that category (since that is what it is), so I don't think that will solve the problem. You are certainly welcome to create 'by registration' categories where they don't exist, but I don't think removing such categories from their existing place is going to go over well. I think for now we ought to just say add an '(all images)' category for aircraft at the level that makes sense: I agree with you that is probably the variant level for the A-4 (e.g. Category:A-4A Skyhawk (all images)). Any big change to how we do aircraft registration categories probably needs to be discussed at the Category:Aircraft by registration level, and is outside the scope of this CfD. Thanks! Josh (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I haven't read all this long discussion. But as user:Themightyquill says category:Flat categories are for categories not for "all images". Galleries should do the job when you want to see all images of Foo aircraft. And content of gallery is much more stabile (and trackable) than files in a category--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flat categories

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:A-4A Skyhawk (flat list).

A definiton is missing. Sanandros (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --GT1976 (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been using it, a flat category:
  • contains no images, only subcategories (like others tagged with {{Catcat}}
  • contains all subcategories that meet the definition of the category, but these are themselves not grouped into subcatgories by other traits.
Thus Category:Categories by date (flat list) contains categories that end in "by date" (e.g. Category:People by date) but does not contain "Category:Categories by year" (even though Category:People by year is a sub-category of Category:People by date). Similarly, Category:People by name contains all people sub-categories (e.g. Category:Lech WaƂęsa) but is not subdivided into Category:People of Poland by name or Category:Men by name (even though Category:People of Poland and Category:Men are descendents of Category:People).
It signifies a break with standard commons sub-categorization to create a single categories that contains all relevant sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your bullet items are as I understand it, too, with one exception: the categories have "by date" (using your example) in the name, but may not end with that. For example, Category:Disestablishments by date by country is in Category:Categories by date (flat list). Maybe it shouldn't be, but there is inconsistency in this area for categories that have more than one sorting criterion specified. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok if there exits rules, can we codify it somewhere?--Sanandros (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to discuss rules, we should include the corresponding non-flat categories, such as Category:Categories by date. In practice, it's mostly metacategories that are in the flat categories (because the metacat template puts them there), but I think the flat categories are sometimes added manually as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it: Should the metacat template automatically place a category in the flat list category? I'm not sure all metacategories are flat. Category:Animals by country is undoubtedly a metacategory, but if it was flat, it would only include Category:Animals in X but not Category:Animals in circus by country or Category:Birds by country‎ etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should. Maybe I misunderstood your description above of what a flat category is. It's not the subcats of those, namely metacategories, that need to be flat. My understanding is that a flat category would/could contain any/all categories that match. For example, "Category:Categories by foo" would/could contain any category that specified "by foo" in its name, even if that resulted in a category and its subcategory both being there. In fact, I think the flat categories should usually be added only by the metacat template. The exception to that would be for criteria that aren't always metacats (those include by name, by registration, by serial number, and probably others). --Auntof6 (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was thinking of those exeptions as the standard format. For instance, since I wouldn't want Category:People of the United States by name as a sub-category of a flat Category:People by name, I wouldn't expect to see Category:Buildings in the United States by date as a sub-category of a flat Category:Buildings by date (flat list). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Could you please explain me what the difference between Category:Categories by alphabet and Category:Categories by alphabet (flat list) is then? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say very little. They're largely if not wholly redundant, depending on how we use them. From a brief glance, it's clear that Category:Categories by alphabet (flat list) should contain Category:Letters by letter by alphabet. It's somewhat unclear to me if it should go in Category:Letters by letter by alphabet, since it's already in Category:Letters by alphabet. See also Category:Categories by name and Category:Categories by name (flat list). It's clear that "(flat list)" should include every category that ends with "by name" but maybe Category:Categories by name is hierarchical? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @GT1976, Auntof6, Sanandros, Themightyquill, and 1234qwer1234qwer4: just an proposal, transcluded from your discussion above:

A Flat category explained with the example of Category:Categories by date (flat list):

Are you agree: Feel free to change it (English is not my mother tongue). Regards --W like wiki good to know 04:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, just found that : {{FlatCat}}:

This category gathers all sub-categories related to its parent category in a non-hierarchical "flat list",
including those that would normally only be found via intermediate sub-categories.

What do you think?

AND: With this template (or my propasal above) {{HiddenCat}} could be included directly!? --W like wiki good to know 04:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea this flatcat should be hidden cat.--Sanandros (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am not sure anymore if flat categories like Category:Bridges in Czechia (flat list) should be hidden!? --W like wiki good to know 00:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be, because they are administrative and not part of the normal hierarchical category tree. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Found out that there round 180 flat categories, not only 66 like in Flat categories. And some like Books by subject (flat list) are "hidden" in Categories by subject (flat list) without sortkey. Is that right!? --W like wiki good to know 05:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS2: Do flatlist with this little definition still really make sense if we have an advanced search function, look here this table and click on any criterion: Commons:List of meta category criteria. --W like wiki good to know 05:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swansea, Toronto

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Populated places in Essex County, Ontario.

Swansea was an independent municipality of Ontario, for well over half a century. After a forced amalgamation with Toronto, in 1967, it is now merely a Toronto neighbourhood, but one that maintains an independent atmosphere.

I know there are recentists, who mock the value in maintaining categories for cities, provinces, nations, that no longer exist. I just don't think they are giving the issues enough thought.

The key thing is that pictures from the time of their independent administration exists. About half the images currently in this category were taken prior to the loss of independence. Most of the rest of the images are of building built prior to the loss of independence. Hence the need for a Category:Swansea, Ontario. I have no objection to also having a category for Swansea, for post annexation images. Geo Swan (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand. You're suggesting we should subdivide this category into Category:Swansea, Ontario (independent municipality) and Category:Swansea, Toronto (neighbourhood) ? Wouldn't Category:History of Swansea, Toronto be sufficient? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not that particular names, but I think all former municipalities that have been annexed into what is now Toronto, should have a pair of categories, for before and after annexation. When neighbourhoods within Toronto have their own category, and its name is disambiguated, it is usually [[Category:Town (Toronto)]] or [[Category:Town, Toronto]]. Municipalities within Ontario are generally disambiguated [[Category:Town, Ontario <nowiki>[[Category:Town (Toronto)]]]]</nowiki>. I am happy to stick with that, for neighbourhoods in Toronto which were once municipalities. So, Category:Swansea, Toronto and Category:Swansea, Ontario.

    Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern France

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Southern France.

This category name implies that it's about an area of France, but it is categorized under statues. It contains one subcat, Category:Unidentified locations in Northern France, and some files showing statues. The subcat would fit in a category with this name, but the files should be in more-specific categories. Proposed resolution:

  • Remove files from this cat.
  • Recategorize the contents of the subcat, possibly creating a new category for them called "Unidentified locations in France by region".
  • Delete this cat and its subcat

Note: Similar issues exist for Category:Southern France, but I will be making a separate CFD for that. Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete There is no official definition of "Northern France", so everybody can include whatever he deems suitable. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete agreed with Uli. Josh (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. Similarly to Southern France, an useful global/maintenance category when one feels uncertain or lazy. There is an important divide between North and South in France, geographically and culturally, so these categories are relevant. The frontier is traditonally considered to be the Loire. Please refer to Southern France on Wikipedia. Nothing on Northern France though, I suppose it's because the North is less popular than the sunny South ;) - Olybrius (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Useful when one feels uncertain or lazy" is not a reason to keep categories. Wikipedia may have an article on Southern France, but they don't categorize things under it. If we keep these categories, are we expected to fully populate them? Between administrative regions and departments, not to mention the areas under Category:Super-regional entities of France, I think we have enough categories for areas of France. If there is nothing that relates to the area as a whole (as opposed to relating separately to its subdivisions), it's not meaningful to have the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern France

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Northern France.

This category name implies that it's about an area of France, but it is categorized under Trains of France. It contains one subcat, Category:Unidentified locations in Southern France, and files showing trains and train stations. The subcat would fit in a category with this name, but the files should be in more-specific categories. Proposed resolution:

  • Recategorize the files.
  • Recategorize the contents of the subcat, possibly creating a new category for them called "Unidentified locations in France by region".
  • Delete this cat and its subcat

Note: Similar issues exist for Category:Northern France, but I made a separate CFD for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Useful global/maintenance category when one feels uncertain or lazy, just like the guy who dumped all these train files (yes indeed, much subcategorization needed here!). And your removing of Category:Calades, which are typical of Southern France, wasn't exactly constructive. Sure if you want a category to be deleted, it makes sense to empty it first ;) - Olybrius (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer science suffixes

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Substring.

should at least be renamed to a meaningful name. I'd prefer it would be deleted, since I can't imagine any more content than the current two subcategories. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the benefit?--Allforrous (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the benefit of renaming would be that the meaning of the name could be understood (there is no such thing as a suffix of a science). The benefit of deletion would be a category structure that is slightly easier to survey (imagine, as an extreme example, each category had at most 2 entries, i.e. the category tree was a binary tree - this would need 50 million categories to order the 50 millon images). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Commons there is no law on maximum of 2 entries for each category.--Allforrous (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I can't imagine any more members of Category:Computer science suffixes - can you?
By analogy, it wouldn't make sense if there was a category "Fast forward buttons" and another one, "Fast backward buttons", to join them under a third one "Fast buttons": the name of the latter is hard to understand (vehicles can be fast, but not buttons), and no more subcategories of "Fast buttons" can be expected. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep--Allforrous (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Allforrous: Respectfully, it's not a vote. Please put forward some solid reasons for keeping this. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 KeepThere is no benefit in erasing. In Commons there is no law on maximum of 2 entries for each category.--Allforrous (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Allforrous: Maybe, you didn't get my point? I do not claim that there is a law on maximum of 2 entries for each category. However, I'm afraid that no more entries will ever exist. If you can think of other entries, please name them (they needn't be categories right now, links to wikipedia articles would suffice for me). If some more entries can be expected for the future, I'd agree to keeping the category; in that case it should, however, be renamed to a more understandable name. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Currently the nominated category has four subcategories. Same category is existing in enwiki en:Category:Computer science suffixes--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christophe communion 2007

[edit]

J'ai créé cette catégprie pour y déplacer ces 12 photos qui étaonet dans la catégprie Churches in Marseille, et qui présznetnet un caractÚre manifestement privé et non encyclopédique. Je pense qu'il serait pertinent de les supprimer, ainsi que la catégprie ad hoc. Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your logic, but I would suggest deleting most of these images as out of scope, then moving those that depict the church or important details of the ceremony back into the main category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support user:Themightyquill's solution.--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flags of the GDR Ministerium fĂŒr Staatssicherheit

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Rank insignia of the GDR Ministry of State Security.

Why do we include the flag of Wachregiment also? I think this should be a seperated cat. Sanandros (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former railway bridges in France

[edit]

Double emploi avec Category:Disused railway bridges in France (celle-ci plus fournie) Fr.Latreille (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A moins qu'on considĂšre que parmi les anciens ponts (former) il y a ceux qui ont cessĂ© d'ĂȘtre Ă  usage ferroviaire (disused) et ceux qui sont en ruine ou ont Ă©tĂ© dĂ©truits ? Mais si çà prend en compte par exemple le Category:Pont aux lions (Arles), çà laisse dans l'ambiguĂŻtĂ© le Category:Viaduc de Chanteloube, intact mais (partiellement) noyĂ©. Tout çà pour peut-ĂȘtre pas grand-chose... --Fr.Latreille (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disused railway bridges is for railway bridges that are no longer used at all; Category:Former railway bridges is for repurposed railway bridges. It could be that one of these should be empty, but no image or category should be in both Category:Former railway bridges in France AND Category:Disused railway bridges in France. The two cannot be redundant. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate further, File:NistertalbrĂŒcke Betretungsverbot.jpg and File:Antiga ponte ferroviĂĄria (Ytuana) sobre o Rio TietĂȘ em Salto - panoramio (1).jpg are examples of disused railway bridges. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that if these 'Former' categories were always understood as the parent of the 'Disused' categories that would be less confusing for users and facilitate navigation. - Olybrius (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe the contrary: Disused > Former / Abandoned as with train stations? These categorizations look rather inconsistent and I fear I contributed to the mess. - Olybrius (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I agree with user:Olybrius that it is easy to be mistaken by these two category trees, but I also see that explanatory hatnotes are added for both: Category:Former railway bridges and Category:Disused railway bridges. I guess that this concrete CFD can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delphine MĂ©nard by year

[edit]

This category and its immediate subcategories are too specific - there are not enough photos to justify categorising them by year. Mike Peel (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May be we can conserve the year's categories when there are one subcategory and/or most of 5 files. --Mazuritz (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Mike Peel: At the moment seems to be quite populated category tree. Seems to be easy keep--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: It's a completely pointless category tree, and isn't really that well populated. I still think it's best to just merge them all into Category:Delphine MĂ©nard - which only has one media file in it, plus this category tree, and gives the impression that we don't have photos of her apart from the one in the infobox! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: it is definitely not "a completely pointless category tree". In general, I am not a fan of "<Person> by year" categories, but to destroy this one seems quite radical. Other options, @Auntof6, Themightyquill, Joshbaumgartner, and Crouch, Swale: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Category inclusion criteria, there should normally be enough files to have such categories otherwise just have them in the topic category and put each fine in a year category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This is a well-populated tree and conforms to a widely used standard of sub-categorization by date. I don't see the problem. Josh (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft engines by brand

[edit]

Can we safely move to Category:Aircraft engines by manufacturer, and add Category:Aircraft manufacturers as a parent category? Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps, just create a separate Category:Aircraft engines by manufacturer instead of moving? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Move , seems more consistent with Category:Aircraft by manufacturer. @Themightyquill: Do you think there is value in keeping both 'by manufacturer' and 'by brand'? If so, I have no problem with that, but I don't really know how to distinguish the two. Josh (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: Before moving, what to do with the subcategory Category:Aircraft piston engines by brand; also to be moved to Category:Aircraft piston engines by manufacturer?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude or partially nude people with lions

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Nudity or partial nudity.

This category is of artistic depctions of nude or partially nude people with lions, not photographs of real nude people with lions. Suggest renaming to "Category:Nude or partially nude people with lions in art". World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoWings: You seem agitated. I am simply suggesting a more precise name for a category. How is that disturbing anything or anyone? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use ad hominem attack such as "You seem agitated". Just try to understand the logic I'm explaining below. And you may understand that this talk is useless and not constructive, i.e. may disturb the project as it is a loss of time and energy for nothing! TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All this talk of "disturbing the project" for a simple DR and unecessary exclamations points makes you seem agitated, that's all. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This category is of artistic depctions of nude or partially nude people with lions, not photographs" > So what ? When it's not specified, it just means that the cat can include both artistic depictions and photographs (at present or in the future), such as the content (files+subcats) of Category:Nude or partially nude people with dogs. I.e. there is no problem with that aspect. As for the "nude and partially nude" aspect, it has to be discussed in a unique discussion, therefore here. Conclusion : this discussion is useless and has to be closed. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I put the link to the other discussion. I though that would be clear. As for this category, "...in art" is fairly standard as a way of indicating that the category deals with art. This category deals with art and not photos, so it should be named in the standard way to help users. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're confounding "current content" and "possible content". When "in art" is not specified, it just means it may (or may not) concern any type of file, whatever the current content is. The "in art" categories are only pertinent if it becomes a subcat of a category with the same title in order to discriminate art and not-art. In this case, it would be a nonsense to created a subcat "in art" within a category that would become empty, at least at present... TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take another example, completely different : in Category:Guitarra morisca, we currently have only one file and it is art. It would be stupid to rename the category in Category:Guitarra morisca in art or to create such a category by keeping it in an empty Category:Guitarra morisca ! It is exactly the same idea here ! If we later have a photograph with a nude or partially nude person with a lion, we may create the subcat "in art". Until that hypothetic case, there's no need to create a subcat nor to rename and delete the current category. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are artworks. They should be categorized as such so that our users can more easily find and use them. They should be in category trees relating to art. Right now they aren't. A mix of photos and art would cause a problem with that. We don't have any photos. The solution is renaming the category and placing it in Category:Lions in art by subject. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to make any effort to understand. Or that just means you definitely want to create categories that would just include a subcategory "in art" (for instance, keeping Category:Guitarra morisca and creating a sub-Category:Guitarra morisca in art, with only one file). To me, this is nonsense.
You see problems where there isn't any. File:Constantin Starck - Poésie lyrique.jpg, for instance, is in 3 different categories concerning lions, 2 of them being "in art" categories. So there are included in the art category trees. There is no --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TwoWings: I understand what you are saying. We just disagree. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, be my guest : create empty categories in order to solve this absence of problem ! This is a total waste of time, energy and digital space... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Split content to Category:Nude people with lions and Category:Partially nude people with lions. Provid a meaningful definition of 'partially nude' on the relevant category. Josh (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: That isn't what is being discussed here. This discussion is about renaming to "Category:Nude or partially nude people with lions in art". World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the 'or' category is inappropriate. One is either nude or partially nude, there is no value to a category clumping both together arbitrarily, it would be like a category "Red or blue hats". Have "Red hats" and "Blue hats" and get rid of the "or" category. Same applies here, regardless of any other issues that exist with name or definition of one or both of the two resulting categories. Josh (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zoophilia with dogs

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Zoophilia with bears.

This category is of artistic depctions of humans having sex with dogs, not photographs of real humans having sex with real dogs. I don't think we will ever have such photos. Suggest renaming to "Category:Zoophilia with dogs in art". World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zoophilia with bears

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Zoophilia with dogs.

This category is of artistic depctions of humans having sex with bears, not photographs of real humans having sex with real bears. I don't think we will ever have such photos. Suggest renaming to "Category:Zoophilia with bears in art". World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Currently this category's parent category Category:Zoophilia_by_animal contains something like 200 images, in fifteen subcategories. I took a couple of minutes, and, at first glance, all the images were paintings, drawings or sculptures, except File:Edwige_Fenech_in_Top_Sensation_(2).jpg -- but that is a still from a movie -- maybe an erotic movie, so, all these images are "in art".

    So, I suggest, "in art" is implied. I suggest it would be pointless to add "in art" to the category names.

    Images of genuine zoophilia, wouldn't they be out of scope, due to being illegal? Geo Swan (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But if we ad "in art" to the category title, it works better as a subcategory of other "in art" parent categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment All of the categories in the "Zoophilia with (animal)" may be in the same situation. I didn't look through each of them, so thanks to Geo Swan for finding the case where we may have a photograph depicting zoophilia. In that case, I suggest keeping Category:Zoophilia with goats and creating Category:Zoophilia with goats in art. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador

[edit]

This category seems redundant with Category:National Assemby of Ecuador. I was going to merge them, but this one contains some things that we might want to keep separate somehow: subcategories for specific actions taken by the Assembly. Should we just merge them, or do we want to make a separate category for the subcats of this one? Auntof6 (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In first sight, I don't see how the actions taken by the Assembly could be separate from the spanish title. Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador, imho, is the correct title for the category since it is the official name of a government instance in Ecuador, therefore it should be in spanish. I propose both to be merged, and National Assembly of EC to serve as a redirection to the correct title. --Edjoerv (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I said a separate category, I meant one whose name would include something like "Actions of the" (if those subcats are for actions). I didn't mean to keep both titles as they are. As for which name to keep, I see that most subcats of Category:National legislatures have English names. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a category for all these actions so that the main category is not so busy Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Auntof6 and Edjoerv: enwiki is under the name en:National Assembly (Ecuador). But in Commons we systematically use the name "National Assembly of Foo country" (even Category:National Assembly is missing). These "actions" (= names of the subcategories in Spanish) should ideally be translated in English, because they are descriptive. I support merging into Category:National Assembly of Ecuador, because enwiki has translated it--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Support merging Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I also support merging to the English version and having a subcategory for actions. Moreover, since there are so many actions, I would prefer dividing them by year. I see alot of support here, should we continue with this? Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I have created National Assembly of Ecuador and requested an automated move Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quality images of Egypt (Choosen by Muhammad Adel)

[edit]

Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories#Categories says "Categories shouldn't be created to collect files based on a user's personal opinion (e.g. User:Example's favourite pictures)". The nominated category is exactly this and does not even contain actually COM:QI-promoted images. Also nominating its subcategories (below) for the same reasons. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories also to be deleted
@HyperGaruda: Quality images of Egypt (Choosen by Muhammad Adel) was a temp name until i finish categorizing Quality images of Egypt. The name could be moved to just "Quality images of Egypt". all subcategories contains photographs that i think meets with Quality image guidelines, I just didn't know that it must be nominated first to be described as quality images. Is it possible to hold the deletion process until i finish nominating all images, it took me several days choosing, evaluating and categorizing these images.--Muhammad adel007 (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhammad adel007: I've created a list of all the relevant images in User:Muhammad adel007/Quality images, based on what is currently placed in these categories. From what I have seen, there are quite some images that will never pass QI guidelines. Easy guidelines to apply yourself are image size (minimum is 2 megapixel) and distortions (buildings should not be tilted due to improper perspective). If you want, I can filter out these low-quality pictures for you. This way, COM:QI will not get flooded with zero-chance files. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda: I appreciate the help offer, if your time allow it please do the filtration process.--Muhammad adel007 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have started screening the images. I think I should be able to give you the final list of candidate photos this weekend. Then it will be up to you to nominate them at COM:QIC. Please do be aware that they only accept 5 nominations per user per day. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhammad adel007: hi, I have finished pre-filtering your list of QI candidates; most low-resolution, overprocessed and bad-perspective should be gone now. Because each user can only nominate 5 images per day at COM:QIC, I suggest you go through the list yourself and keep only those that are really worth the effort. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @HyperGaruda: I really appreciate the help and the advice.--Muhammad adel007 (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the main category from Category:Quality images of Egypt. The subcategories should have Template:hiddencat added to them because they are user categories, and their name is problematic as "Quality images of" still indicates promoted QI's. (They could be renamed to something like Category:Work_by_Muhammad_Adel/Potential Quality Images which indicates a user category.) --Trougnouf (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Trougnouf, Muhammad adel007, and HyperGaruda: most of the above-mentioned user categories are empty. Those which have 1-3 files, I suggest to upmerge into the new category Category:Work by Muhammad Adel (potential quality images) (parent is Category:Work by Muhammad Adel). If all files are upmerged all these 51 subcategories to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude computer-generated imagery

[edit]

Category:National parks of the England and Wales

[edit]

unnecessary; 2 member categories are also in Category:National parks of the United Kingdom Finavon (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This catehgory was created because of existence the same name category in en.wiki and for avoiding duplicates in Wikidata. JAn DudĂ­k (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn. en:National parks of England and Wales and en:List of national parks of England and Wales exist because the designation covers both. On the other hand, since we're dividing it up anyway, I'm not sure the point of the joint category. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Enwiki has also both of these categories. If enwiki merge them, we can follow it. But before it, I think that keep the both is the solution here in Commons--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it seems "National park of England and Wales" isnt an official title anyway, in the law itself National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/97 .
as such,  Delete. put the member cats for england and for wales directly under that for the uk. RZuo (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monument Ă  Jules Verne (Amiens)

[edit]

Ybroc would like to discuss his bulk renaming of categories from English to French language by creating new cats and blanking the former ones. Achim (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sculptures in Amiens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybroc (talk ‱ contribs) 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Stale discussion. @Achim55 and Ybroc: seems to be a massive nomination. User:Ybroc has created about 600 categories. Filtrating would be an enormous work?--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Association football chairpersons and investors

[edit]

Category:Association football chairpersons and investors causes confusion considering the Presidents of association football clubs cats, as "presidents "are "chairpersons" but not under this cat... E4024 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: This category mirros en:Category:Association football chairmen and investors. There have also been a discussion: en:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_23#Category:English_football_chairmen_and_investors--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tettigonia viridissima morfology

[edit]

can be erased Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. The nominated category has been redirected to Category:Tettigonia viridissima anatomy. I guess this discussion can be closed, and probably the nominated category should be deleted, because it is misspelled--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gravel river beds in Georgia

[edit]

We need to find a general expression for "river beds" vs. "stream beds". Sometimes it is used identically for the same phenomenon, sometimes differentiated (see: Gravel stream beds vs. Gravel river beds in Georgia). Hornstrandir1 (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hornstrandir1: this discussion should be discussed at parent categories. We probably should follow the enwiki, which probably says that en:stream bed is wider concept than en:river bed (is redirected in enwiki)--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tel Aviv-Yafo by street

[edit]

We have Category:Streets in Tel Aviv-Yafo. Do we have a similar practice elsewhere? I is confused... E4024 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this naming anywhere else. I would normally expect this content to be under Category:Streets in Tel Aviv-Yafo. I suppose we could have Category:Streets in Tel Aviv-Yafo by name if we really want them separate, but I'm not in favor of setting that precedent. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Commons is not a city guide. --E4024 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical instruments in ancient Hebrew

[edit]

Category needs renaming, or possibly deletion. "Hebrew" is a language or an ethnic group, not a place. Auntof6 (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Auntof6: On Wikimedia Commons, Musical instruments are categorized not only by the place (country, etc) but also by the language, ethnic group, ethnic culture, etc, so this categorization is valid. Just to make sure, I've added this category under the Musical instruments by ethnicity. --Clusternote (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --[complemented the words in italics ] Clusternote (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Clusternote: The idea of the categorization may be valid, but not the category name. The preposition in implies a language. Maybe this could be called "Ancient Hebrew musical instruments" or "Musical instruments of the ancient Hebrews". --Auntof6 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: :The naming convention of category on the Wikimedia Commons is different from English Wikipedia and it seems slightly mysterious. If the criterion of category was ancient country, it might be named "musical instruments in ancient country" (Note: a definite article "the" seems omitted on convention of Wikimedia Commons). On the other hand, if the criterion was ethnonym, it might be named "Ethnonym musical instruments". And on our issue, the criterion is ancient ethnicity, however there are no previous similar cases.
So, tentatively we need to determine the naming convention for our issue. I think your second option without a definite article ("the"), "Musical instruments of ancient Hebrews" is better choice. If you agree with it, I will rename it. Are you OK ? --Clusternote (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Clusternote and Auntof6: (also pinging user:Themightyquill) most of the categories in parent Category:Musical instruments by ethnicity follow the pattern <Ethnonym musical instruments> and one subcategory is Category:Jewish musical instruments. So what is the logical name in English?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Ancient instruments as a subcategory of Category:Jewish Ancient history? -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those should probably be "Ancient Jewish" instead of "Jewish ancient". For explanation, as well as interesting grammar information, see this page showing that adjectives of age (such as " ancient") come before adjectives of origin or religion (such as "Jewish"). -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Same with Category:Maps of Jewish Ancient history. The other subcategories of Category:Jewish Ancient history already have it right. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2018/12&oldid=801075337"