Commons:Categories for discussion

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓


Shortcut: COM:CFD

This page provides a centralized place to discuss the naming convention of categories. Currently the naming conventions for categories are spread over the following pages:

[edit] Listing a category on "Categories for discussion" page

This documentation is currently in the middle of being updated, please see the talk page

I.

Add {{cfd}} tag:
  • Add the following code to the top of the category page.
  • If you are nominating many categories in a series, write {{subst:cfd|pagename}}[1]
{{subst:cfd}}
II.

Create a subpage of Categories for discussion :
Manually create a subpage of discussion requests and post your discussion request there,
  • Subpage: /Current requests/2008/05/Category:CATEGORY-NAME
  • Discussion Request: {{subst:cfd2|WRITE REASON|Category:CATEGORY-NAME}}
OR follow the procedure below
  • Enter the name of the file that you wish to nominate for discussion, click on "Create the subpage", and simply follow the instructions given there.
  • On an category page (on which you've added the {{cfd}} template), you should have the "add the request page" link. Click on that link, and simply follow the instructions given there.
III.

Add the link of sub-page in "Discussion Request Log":

After you are done with that you have to add the newly created subpage to Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/05. The log is sorted by date; if there are already other requests there, add your line at the bottom without erasing the existing requests. Remember to save the page.

Add the following code:
"CATEGORY-NAME" is the name of the category you have tagged.

{{Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/05/Category:CATEGORY-NAME}}
IV.

Notify the creator with {{cdw}} tag:
  • Sometimes it makes sense to notify the creator of a category on their talk page. Use the notify text given after adding the delete template.
  • "CATEGORY-NAME" is the name of the category you have tagged.
 {{subst:cdw|Category:CATEGORY-NAME}} --~~~~
  1. ↑ For example, add {{subst:cfd|Categories of Mike}} to all categories in this series.

Note that if you want to have modifications in this list appear in your watchlist, for each new month and for each new item in the list you want to watch, you have to open the item for editing and click the watch tab.

Archive

Contents


[edit] Current Requests

[edit] July 2007

[edit] Category:Audio by brand

On his own initiative, User:Jeff G. moved most of the contents of Category:Record labels in Category:Audio by brand. Category:Record labels matches the English Wikipedia article English Wikipedia Record label, while Category:Audio by brand doesn't comply with our conventions (see Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION).

User:Jeff G. refused to revert his move, arguing that “Record label” was an American English expression. He still added companies and audio equipment subcategories to Category:Audio by brand.

My first concern is to restore a category matching the initial subject (brands for audio records). This category could be Category:Record labels, or an alternative name. I am trying to find a consensus about the destination category.

Then, I think that Category:Audio by brand will have to be deleted. --Juiced lemon 21:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I agree that Category:Audio by brand is not a very good name for a category. Besides not fitting with the conventions, it also is not very clear what the category is about. If we need a different category structure then, could we first try to find out what it is we need to categorize?
  1. Record companies, the most common name for which is record label. Record label refers to the brand rather than the company, but that shouldn't make much of a difference. We might try to find a less ambiguous name than Category:Record labels for that.
  2. Record labels, that is, the labels that are on records. These should reside in Category:Gramophone records. If there is a category for a certain record company, then the images should also be in the category for that particular company, of course. I don't think we need a separate category tree "recordings belonging to a certain record company", as these images are very few indeed.
  3. Audio companies, that means companies that produce any kind of audio equipment. These could go in a category like enWP's Audio equipment manufacturers.
That's all I can think of at the moment. --rimshottalk 19:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION is not "our conventions", it's your dream. My concept of this category covers the following (which maybe can get get their own subcategories at some point, given enough images, time for categorization, and time for copyright expiration):
  • audio equipment/hardware by brand (such as Sharp and Aiwa stereos, Apple iPods, guitars, amps, drums, cymbals, mikes, violins, clarinets, flutes, Category:Gramophone Company record players, radios, tape players, and CD players)
  • audio records by brand (blank and pre-recorded (where Category:Record labels and Category:Gramophone Company would fit), such as entire records, just their labels, their dustjackets, and their inserts)
  • reel-to-reel audio tape by brand (blank (such as 3M and BASF) and pre-recorded)
  • audio cassettes by brand (8-track tape, standard, mini, micro, etc. (blank (such as 3M, Maxell, Radio Shack, TDK, and Memorex) and pre-recorded (such as Columbia Records)))
  • audio CDs by brand (blank (including CD-R and CD-RW, such as 3M and TDK) and pre-recorded (such as Columbia Records))
  • digital audio content by brand (such as Apple iTunes and Napster)
  • music producers by brand (what Category:Record labels generally means in the US, such as Columbia Records, Virgin Records, and Edison Records)
  • music sales outlets by brand (such as HMV, Target, Sam Ash, CD World, Radio Shack, and traditional record stores)
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

[edit] Category:Rail transport

I developped the “Rail transport” structure in Commons because:

  • Railway and Railroad redirect to Rail transport in the English Wikipedia
  • I suspected some dispute between English “Railway” and American English “Railroad”
  • I was not sure that Railways had exactly the same meaning than Rail transport for Commons users.

However, Category:Railways by country remains with many subcategories. So, we should have to decide what to do with this structure, assuming it duplicates the Rail transport structure.

So, I propose to move:

Since “Railways” categories are used to categorize Railway/railroad lines, I suggest to create Category:Railway lines (or another name - see English Wikipedia Category:Railway lines). So, Category:Railroad schedules would be moved to Category:Railway line schedules. --Juiced lemon 11:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very fit in English. So: what is "rail transport" precisely? Does it assume only heavy railways or does it stand for light rail transit forms like metros, LRTs and tramways too? And on the other side: What is the intention for the new categories? In my mind, the old categories "railways in COUNTRY" are for heavy railway systems only. --Chumwa 05:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Follow the link to the English Wikipedia under the section title. Rail transport regards “rail guided transport”. That includes English Wikipedia Maglev train and other techniques without physical contact with the English Wikipedia rail, but excludes cableways, conveyor belts, toboggans, pipelines, automated guided vehicles, amongst others.
As said above, “railway” is a redirection to “rail transport” in the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia term for “metro” is English Wikipedia rapid transit, and this concept includes ligh and heavy railways. What are Category:Railways in Commons is unclear. In my opinion, either we are able to clarify the concept, either we must dismantle the matching structure. --Juiced lemon 08:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the rail transport category system currently is a mess. I also agree with renaming Railways in COUNTRY to Rail transport in COUNTRY - existing categories can be merged into. Category:Railroad can be upmerged to Category:Rail transport. I think before we start any other moves, we should get together the list of renames necessary for this. When that is through we can get back to discussing the remaining mess. --rimshottalk 13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I support merging categories that use railway and railroad in their name, to equivalent categories that use rail transport in their name instead. That includes the "in COUNTRY" ones as well. Probably soft redirects should be left behind and a periodic cleaning done too. But I also agree that developing a larger list of what all would be affected might be helpful as then AWB might be effectively brought to bear. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

CommonDelinker should work quite nicely, I'd think. I'll prepare a temporary subpage to collect the necessary moves. --rimshottalk 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added some category moves/merges. --rimshottalk 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added Category:Railcar as well. Note that w:Railcar and w:Railroad car is not the same. Category:Rail car, I think, is about railroad cars. --rimshottalk 10:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All the stuff on the temp page looks good to me. I see no objections.... Can you queue it up for the Delinker bot? ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have added the heading Batch 1 to all existing proposals. If you add anything new, please make a new heading or a new temp page, as the existing moves have all been double-checked by me. --rimshottalk 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Move requested. --rimshottalk 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, the moves have been performed. Now these categories need to be cleaned up. --rimshottalk 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Batch 1 is done and I'm in the process of cleaning up the results. As you can see on the temp page (Batch 2), I have added Category:Railways by state and the subcategories. There's no question about the renaming of Category:Railways by state, I think, as it doesn't even mention which country it is about. Renaming the railways to railway companies is in line with the other renames performed. --rimshottalk 12:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

Now that railcars are cleared, we can go on to rail cars, or railroad cars. I have added a request to move Category:Rail car to Category:Railroad cars. --rimshottalk 13:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree to use railroad cars as a universal term for unpowered rail vehicles. As was said at the beginning of this discussion, railroad is American use, not universal english. We should build up a structure starting with rolling stock. Next level would be motive power and something like pulled stock. I guess there are better propositions. I will put a proposition on Batch 2 page. Gürbetaler 01:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind using railway wagon instead or railroad car. We could put a redirect at Category:Railroad cars, to be safe. I've changed that part accordingly. I'm not so sure about motor coaches - to choose the name railcars, I went by the wikipedia article. Isn't a motor coach just a bus? --rimshottalk 12:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
“Motor coach” is ambiguous. If we have “railway coaches” to transport passengers, motorized ones in a multiple unit would be named “railway motor coaches”. However, maybe this category is not useful (see Category:Diesel multiple units and Category:Electric multiple units). --Juiced lemon 14:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I see. w:Multiple unit says that railcars are sometimes referred to as multiple units, when they can be coupled. We could add something to that effect in the description of railcar and multiple unit. As for the translation: the German Schienenbus is very much the same as a railcar. There is a word Triebwagenzug, which describes a train made up of motorized units, so that's about the same as a multiple unit. One part of this train is called Triebwagen. French is a bit more complicated: fr:autorail is used for each of these. There is, however, a word unité multiple, which can be used for multiple units. I think that railcars are special enough to deserve categories of their own - we shouldn't let shortcomings of languages hinder us. --rimshottalk 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that railcars are not elements of multiple units, hence are specific rolling stock. My concern was possible subdivisions of “Multiple units” categories, with a particular substructure for motorized elements of multiple units. --Juiced lemon 16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Life is complicated but language is sometimes even more complicated. Triebwagenzug is a word for a certain type of train, saying it is not pulled by a locomotive. But a Triebwagenzug can be a single railcar, a rake of coaches pulled by a motor coach or a multiple unit. The word Schienenbus is always a diesel powered railcar in Germany (but the Swedish rälsbus can also be electric). Newer series could be MUed and thus became DMUs. In Switzerland, the word was never used, except for the German vehicles, but in Germany the word is now also gone - except for the few preserved ones. This is just to say, language is living and there isn't always an exact match for one word in every language. Railcar or Multiple units are "wrong" categories for motor coaches that pull trains like locomotives do. Triebwagen stands for more than just multiple units, it is also motor coach and railcar. Gürbetaler 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
We specify categories according to selected subjects, that is subjects which can be easily defined and understood. Language issues have minor importance. If you need a particular category, define its subject, then we'll find the name if the subject is relevant. --Juiced lemon 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that's what I'm trying to say. I need a category for the photos of Swiss "Triebwagen", which have conceptual elements of multiple units, railcars and motor coaches. Concept and use of these vehicles is different from British or American designs. This is why neither multiple units nor railcars does really fit. Gürbetaler 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that “multiple unit” is a shortage for “multiple-unit train” (see English Wikipedia multiple unit). So, the components of a “multiple-unit train” are units like trailer units or special units (various types, according to combinations of “power-delivery”, “motor” and “cab”).

Literally, Triebwagen means “motor coach”, or “motor unit”. However, we can have steam, diesel or electric motors. Do you need categories for these types? Railcars are not “motor units”, because they cannot be coupled, except with trailers. And an only “motor unit” don't transform in a railcar. --Juiced lemon 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

According to a discussion on SwissRail group, neither multiple unit nor railcar is correct for many Swiss Triebwagen. They are used like locomotives, even for freight trains. They are now in the following categories:

Should we build categories like this:

Sure, this would also include locomotives, but they could be included as subcategroies. Gürbetaler 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The term “motive power” is not specific to vehicles. For consistency with “multiple unit”, I suggest:
However, we need some manifest criteria to discern between motive units and railcars. --Juiced lemon 12:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There are buckets full of Ian Allen Books that were called "British Rail Motive Power" and contained all locomotives and multiple units. So, motive power is specific to vehicles. And for the rest, why should we discern betwen motive power and railcars? No Swiss vehicle was ever called "Schienenbus". Simply assume, this category doesn't exist in Switzerland! --Gürbetaler 19:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
If there is no need to discern between motive power and railcars, the current scheme for Switzerland is satisfactory, since it's the same one for any country in the world. --Juiced lemon 19:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Categories are not satisfactory, since many powerful, heavy motor coaches are listed either as Railcars or multiple units.--Gürbetaler 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Railcars can be powerful [1]. --Juiced lemon 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This motor coach wasn't too paowerfull but nobody ever called it a railcar Gürbetaler 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Here, Triebwagen=railcar. A motor coach is a road vehicle (see this redirection English Wikipedia Motor coach). --Juiced lemon 00:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The site you indicate is from a group of French speaking Swiss railway photographers. They may be a reference for railway photography or for Swiss-French railway terms but sure not for English railway terms. In a long discussion [2] between people from different parts of this world we could establish, that motor coach is a good translation for Triebwagen. However, only British English uses this term, while American English would rather tend to the word motor car. To avoid a mix-up with the American use of the term, which is for long-distance buses, it was proposed to put "rail motor coach". Now it is impossible to find a term that is equally used everywhere. It remains a fact that Americans call coaches passenger cars, points switches and railways railroads. Here are some references for the British use of motor coach for Triebwagen:

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

And, by the way, this is the word I find in my dictionnary as translation for "Triebwagen". There is no reason NOT to use the term "motor coach". -- Gürbetaler 16:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia article English Wikipedia locomotive lists the different types of railway vehicles which provide the motive power for a train:
I think we should confine with these terms. We should also define criteria in order to easily classify the railway vehicles between these four main types. --Juiced lemon 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia article is now more complete. --Gürbetaler 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Is your English Wikipedia rail motor coach a fifth kind of motive vehicles? In that case, I think it would not be easy to sort the motive vehicles. --Juiced lemon 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Bruges and subcategories

Reason: Trench warfare concerning the naming of Bruges subcategories.

On August, 8th, Category:Brugge was moved to Category:Bruges, due to implementation of the Commons policy:

Categories are in English.

According to the modularity principle in Commons:Naming categories#Principles), which widely applied in Commons, the subcategories “compound” names have to be made up from the basic (English) name of the parent category: Bruges. This was clearly announced in Category talk:Brugge.

Now, some users (in particular Flemish ones) are leading a trench warfare in order to prevent the set up of subcategories with “Bruges” in their name:

  • removing move requests [9]
  • removing categorization of used category pages [10]
  • adding move requests to correct subcategories [11]

These actions are a waste of time and are detrimental to the access to media files related to Bruges. Therefore, I request the administrators to enforce the current language policy. --Juiced lemon 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) --Juiced lemon 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First, this is not an action of Flemish users, it is my personal action to try to decrease the level of hostility and conflict generating procedures that lead to edit wars. I would take exactly the same action if I was speaking another language. Personally, I don't care less if the subcats are using Bruges or Brugge: I care about a consistent approach that is acceptable for local people that are non-english speakers and that have to "live and work" daily in "their" categories. This action is in the first place inspired by the fact that there is probably no single substantial non-english speaking city that follows the proposed commons language rules (which are not a formal policy, nor a formally accepted set of rules).
As I explained several days before I started my action in User_talk:Juiced_lemon#Please_STOP (which now has been removed by Juiced lemon, so I made a copy available in Category_talk:Bruges#Please_STOP), Category:Bruges is the demo case based on which I want to make a global commons user assessment, definition of user needs and a number of suggestions for improvements in naming conventions, multi-language solutions, easier access, categorisation, procedures etc ...
Independently from this action, I think that I will be able to formulate interestings suggestions for actual and future multi-language tools and wiki's.
So my only request is to allow me to continue to prepare a documented and demonstrated case, which might be completed by the end of september. --Foroa 10:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The topics structure is not intended for testing. You can build any categories structure for testing with your user's subpages. --Juiced lemon 10:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It is widely known that demonstrations of improvements, standards and other concepts are only realistic if they are done and exercised with representative data sets, conditions and environment. It is a bit strange that this is the first argument against my democase since I communicated it to Juiced lemon.
This category is equally a demonstration of the inherently conflicting movecat procedure, which is to the best of my knowledge, not a procedure which is documented or allowed in the commons procedures, but very much appreciated and applied by Juiced lemon, and a major cause of edit wars, frustrated people and a significant part of the disputes. --Foroa 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Test cases can only be tested if accessible to a wide audience. And please stop removing the reasons for moves as you did here: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Lycaon 12:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you understand this:
In any case, NEVER link my talk page in a move request.
I have cleaned the linked section. I'll restore it later, when subcategories of Bruges will comply with our language policy. --Juiced lemon 12:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Foroa, it doesn't belong to you to decide if your demonstration grants to be exercised in the topics structure. You have not explained what you want to demonstrate, and you have not persuaded us that your demonstration will be useful to something neither. --Juiced lemon 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
--Juiced lemon: Com'on Juiced lemon, almost all non-english speaking and several english speaking cities are demonstrators of the non-respect of the non-written and non-agreed commons categoriastaion and language rules.
To avoid misunderstandings and for clarity, the removed discussion from Juiced lemon's talk page is available now on Category_talk:Bruges#Please_STOP. --Foroa 13:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Bruges

This discussion seems still in progress, according to the notice on the Category:Bruges-page. At present we have a cat with the English name (which seems reasonable, cf. Antwerp, Cologne (also very French!), Vienna, Warsaw), some subcats with the same name, but some subcats with a Dutch name. Some subcats should also undergo a name change (the ones with Brugge, I would say). The only exception I could find to support "Brugge" (local instead of English) is Category:Kraków, which to me is as hard to understand as "Brugge". Fransvannes 18:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

[edit] Category:Italian regional flags to Category:Flags of regions of Italy

I propose merging Category:Italian regional flags to Category:Flags of regions of Italy as both categories have the same content. Pending the decision in the flag photography thread above, we could also move Category:Italian regional flags to Category:Photographs of flags of regions of Italy, as it contains only photographs. --rimshottalk 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't have the same content: those photos are both photos of flags and photos of the parade, so the categoy is linked by both the flags and the parade categories. Merging would "detach" a part of the parade photos, or include material unrelated to the parade in the category tree. --Jollyroger 08:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Category:Italian regional flags is in only one category, and that is Category:Flags. There is also no page that links there. That makes me wonder what you mean by the categoy is linked by both the flags and the parade categories. Is Italian regional flags the name of the parade? --rimshottalk 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Move, not merge. I prefer to keep flagdesigns and photographs of flags in parallel but separate category trees under the general Category:flags. What name to choose? flags on photographs or photographs of flags? and for subcategories: flags of regions of Italy on photographs or photographs of flags of regions of Italy? I prefer emphasis on flags. Havang 12:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see those images are all in the parade category. I thought they were in a subcat linked by the parade page. Sorry for misunderstanding. Anytway, I agree with Havang, it is better to keep schemes and photos in two different categories. --Jollyroger 13:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I have now created some of the Photographs of flags tree, but I still do not really know what Category:Italian regional flags is supposed to be about. I guess it's one of the following:
  1. Italian regional flags - in that case move to Category:Photographs of flags of regions of Italy
  2. Flags of regions of Italy that were photographed during this particular parade - in that case, rename to a category name that reflects this.
Jollyroger, as you created the category, could you tell me which one it is? --rimshottalk 11:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not put all parade photographs in the parade 2007 category and give all photographs with a flag (not only those with a region flag, there are more flags photgraphed) one secundary category in the photographs of flags tree. Also add in the item page a description about what flag is pictured, that is as important as classification in a category. Havang 09:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the category was meant to disperse the parade 2007 category, which was way too crowded. That's why it's no solution to put the images back in there. --rimshottalk 11:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Kicks

Suggest renaming to Category:Kicking (same form as other categories in Category:Locomotion) and that the too specific Category:Kick (football) be deleted. /Lokal_Profil 22:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that kicking is a form of locomotion, couldn't we just remove it from that category? Also, while you could technically say that this guy is kicking the boards, wouldn't one more correctly speak of performing a kick? I think that kicks is a more suitable category for these images - consistency should not be a reason to use a bad name. --rimshottalk 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you call it, I agree it has nothing to do with locomotion and should be removed from there --Tony Wills 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My misstake. Just take it out of locomotion. Still think the current category name is missleading though. As can be seen from it's contents it's mixing kicks (martial arts type) with kicking (say kicking a football). A name which would destinguish between the two would be better. /Lokal_Profil 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I deleted Category:Kick (football) because it was too specific like Lokal said, It wasn't being used, anyway. Rocket000 11:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

[edit] Category:Perth, Australia

Reasons for discussion request -- The naming is ambigious as there is a Perth, Tasmania and a Perth Western Australia. The content currently in the category is all for Perth WA so the category should be renamed to that. This would also make the category consistant with all other Wikimedia projects which distinguish between the two locations. Gnangarra 15:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the size of Perth, Tasmania (2000 people), I think we can safely assume that people looking for Perth, Australia mean the capital of WA. --rimshottalk 12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Female genitalia

Subject of a rather strange dispute between User:Juiced lemon and User:AnonMoos. First slated to be merged into Category:Female reproductive system, now changed to Category:Vulva --SB_Johnny | PA! 13:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why AnonMoos get worked up about the subject, since we are only discussing at the moment.
Genitalia: The genitals. ([16])
Genitals: The reproductive organs, especially the external sex organs. ([17])
Vulva: The external genital organs of the female, including the labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, and vestibule of the vagina. ([18])
“Vulva” has a clear definition, then the meaning of “genitalia” have to be deduced from the context. However, the first meaning is “reproductive organs” , and that explains:
There is obviously some difference between an organ system and a the set of reproductive organs. However, AnonMoos don't explain why this difference is important for classification purposes. My opinion is that we must not keep categories with vague names, because that always leads to classification mistakes.
I had choosed the destination category of the move request according to the subject. The contents generally doesn't matter: each media file have to be classified according to its own features, in the more suitable categories, and a category move don't change that: the terminology is misleading.--Juiced lemon 13:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
See also the English Wikipedia articles English Wikipedia Vulva, English Wikipedia Female reproductive system, and the redirection page English Wikipedia Female genitalia. --Juiced lemon 14:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Juiced_lemon seems to base a lot of his categorization decisions on abstract metaphysical reasoning, sometimes seemingly without much paying attention as to how such alterations of the category structure will affect the practical side of helping people to better be able to find particular images (which is the real reason why we have categories at all).

Currently, Category:Female genitalia is for external views, while images directly in Category:Female reproductive system are generally for deeper images which depict what lies beneath the skin (not just what's on the surface). This is a useful distinction, and the result of Juiced_lemon's philosophical reasonings would be to collapse this distinction, and lump the two types of images indiscriminately together in a single category. This is undesirable -- and what's quite strange is that Juiced_lemon has just recently created a category:Vulva which is quite redundant and duplicative to category:Female genitalia, but he does not propose merging category:Vulva and category:Female genitalia together (which would have no bad effects), but instead inexplicably rpoposes merging category:Female genitalia and Category:Female reproductive system together (which would have definite bad effects, as discussed above).

I really wish that Juiced_lemon would pay more attention to the practical effects of changing category structures (considering carefully whether or not such changes will help people to better and more easily find images), instead of basing everything on abstract theories and general philosophy -- and also that Juiced_lemon would just slow down when people have expressed concerns over some of his actions -- instead of unilaterally charging ahead twice as fast while ignoring almost everything that other people have said (which is pretty much what Juiced_lemon did here). AnonMoos 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You said: Currently, Category:Female genitalia is for external views, but obviously, some users don't share your interpretation: this image is not an external view of female sex organs.
External views of female sex organs will be categorized in category:vulva, or in more precise categories where appropriate. A move request doesn't change the basic rules of classification, doesn't presume the ways of the move process, and cannot have bad effects.
On the other hand this edit is yours, and you are the only user who currently populates category:Female reproductive system with inappropriate files. --Juiced lemon 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

[edit] Category:Cosmos (flower)

Should be renamed to Category:Cosmos (plant); the flower is merely a part of the plant. --Lucis 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The need for a renaming is so obvious that I had renamed without a previous discussion like this. --Ies 06:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Category:Cosmos (genus) would be the appropriate choice considering that we use scientific names in categories of living things. Samulili 13:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Lucis 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, Category:Cosmos is a best choice, since this page is currently unused. --Juiced lemon 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are renaming the category, I think, Category:Cosmos (plant) would be fine - the same should then be done with Category:Hyacinthus (flower) and Category:Unidentified Iris (flower).
For me (genus) doesn't indicate if the category is about an animal or a plant... if Category:Arenaria (plant) would be renamed in (genus), I wouldn't know what to expect. --Anna reg 11:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Former country subdivisions

Rename to the clearer Former subdivisions of countries --Lokal_Profil 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  •  Oppose It is not clearer, these are different expressions with different meanings. “Former country subdivision” is easily understandable, with the help of the English Wikipedia article English Wikipedia country subdivision if needed. --Juiced lemon 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Former country subdivisions can be interpreted as both "subdivisions of former countries" and "former subdivisions of current countries". As far as I've understood it's only intended to be used for "former subdivisions of current countries" since it is not part of the Category:Former countries-tree. Therefore Former subdivisions of countries is clearer. /Lokal_Profil 00:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
“Former country subdivisions” could be interpreted as “former subdivisions in current countries”, too. You cannot deduce anything from the current content of Category:Former country subdivisions. We'll create the subcategory Category:Former subdivisions by country (according to Commons conventions) when needed. --Juiced lemon 10:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
“former subdivisions in current countries” and "former subdivisions of current countries" is not that far from each other but completly separeate from "subdivisions of former countries". But yes you're suggestion is better. Rename "Former country subdivisions" to "Former subdivisions by country" which is much clearer./ Lokal_Profil 11:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subcategories of Courthouses in the United States

I'm nominating these two categories for renaming to make them consistent with the naming conventions at Category:Courthouses in the United States, the parent category. Besides consistency, having "county" in the category name discourages categorizing appellate and supreme court buildings here, but it's more logical to have all the courthouses for one state in the same category (they aren't very large).--Chaser 20:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with removing county from the name as I see no reason to mix them. If and when such images get uploaded they can have their own category. Cburnett 20:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
They're already being uploaded and there are probably double that many images on the English Wikipedia that could be moved to Commons for the occasional non-English article about a state supreme court (in the case of the Nevada image, it was uploaded here for just that purpose). Having them all in the same category makes sense at this stage because it's rare for Wikimedia to have more than one image of any state supreme court.--Chaser 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about for TX & IA, but that's fine. Assume all IA courthouses have a picture. You're talking 99 counties plus Northern (2) and Southern (3) halves of the 8th circuit. Assume none of the files are named systematically and you want a picture of the appellate court in Davenport. Go. Worst case is you have to click on 104 images to read if it's the right one. In this case the point of categorization has lost all meaning and helpfulness. Assume that the files are named reasonably, you still have to look at 104 file names to find it.
It would be a heck of a lot easier to find what you want if you had a category for each, much so if and when courthouses start getting duplicates. Instead of setting up the categories for future hardship why not solve the problem here and now? Is a few dozen more categories going to break commons or something? Cburnett 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ditto for Texas. Texas has 254 counties. -Nv8200p 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Apart from that, Category:Courthouses in the United States isn't consistently named. I think that all the categories should be renamed to Courthouses of .... --rimshottalk 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. At least remove the "county" restriction from the name, as per the reason stated above. No opinion about "of" versus "in", though. — Loadmaster 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Create a new, higher category of Courthouses of Texas that County Courthouses of Texas would link in to -Nv8200p 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Farms by country

Principal aspects:

  • Categories named "Farms in …" invite to enter very different things, such as buildings, farmland, animals, technical supplies etc. Most of them can be categorized under “Agriculture in …" as well. So the existence of "Farms …"-categories beneath "Agriculture …"-categories is redundant.
  • Therefore more specific categories are afforded, worldwide and for the various countries.
  • If a photo or graphic shows different items, it has to be subsumed to more than one category.
  • If there is too much of a category tree, people put very similar uploads in very different storeys of it, and somebody has to recategorize them to maintain the survey.

Special aspect:

  • Especially in densely populated regions of Europe there are lots of farmhouses, that are nowadays inhabited by people of urban profession and not by farmers. Nevertheless these farmhouses are important documents of regional tradition.
  • If there is a useful possible storey between “Farmhouses" and "Agriculture", it is "Farm buldings". --Ulamm 13:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the request from Template:Farms by country. Note that there is a deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Farms by country as well. --rimshottalk 14:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To avoid the spreading of discussions allover the place, I copied underneath the reactions on the Template:Farms by country deletion request. Currently, all farms are categorised under farms unless modified recently byUlamm. --Foroa 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  •  Oppose -
    • this whole Farmhouse thing is a very strange category. It would rather be that one that could be deleted. So IF one would want a rather detailed category like "farmhouses", it would rather be a subcategory of "farms".
    • Secondly: it makes NO sense whatsoever, to move a picture form a category, and put it in a (wrong) subcategory AND a parent category... [[19]] it seems that you're missing the entire categorization concept then and something is seriously wrong. Some strange things have been done: a pic with a farmhouse, a barn, the farm grounds, some animals, the farmer is an archetypal image of a farm. So that's where it belong. See also the remarks of user:Royalbroil [20]
    • Thirdly: a valid category tree like farms should NOT be just emptied and destroyed before putting the deletion template. It will do fine without destroying the work of other people and just tagging it with the request template.
  •  Oppose - This category should remain for pictures that contain numerous structures commonly found on a farm. For example, any picture at least two of the following: a barn, silo, farmhouse, and/or shed belong in this category. Contributors can add optional categories if appropriate. So if a silo is prominent, the contributor has the option of adding the image to the silo category, farm category, or both. This category should be a child of the agriculture category and a parent of any of the previously mentioned categories. Royalbroil 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think that we all can agree that the word farm is a wide definition that covers many aspects, and I can understand that some people find the definition too wide. In that category, there is possibly space for subcategories such as farmhouses, barns, stables, silo's, the typical gates, entrances, fences, bell towers (angelus) and other architectural details ... etc. But the deeper one categorizes, the more problems one is going to have. If one looks to the pictures of Category:Fiefdoms in Ingelmunster, a very old farm, one can see a potential wide collection, none of them being the actual farmhouse as it is hidden as private territory. In fact, for many old farms, especially in Europe, the most characteristic elements of the farms that remain contain still many elements in which the farmhouse itself is only a small aspect. Today, most farms are only containing the "postcard" type of pictures that shows mainly the farmhouse (which is a debatable term as the older ones contain stables too). As we see a general trend towards more encyclopedic and detailed pictures, the farmhouse category will be more and more contested as being too restrictive. Similarly, in Category:Ten Bogaerde, only one of the four pictures pertains to the farmhouse.
((Interposition:)) Ten Bogaerde is the agricultural estate of an abandoned abbey. So I've to admit, that categorization was wrong. But it shows as well, that it would be wrong to rename and move to category:Farmhouses by country to category:Farms by country. It is the same thing with Category:Manors by country – manors have an other social context than farmhouses, which are part of vernacular architecture.--Ulamm 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As my conclusion: farm covers farmhouses and other items related to farms, farmhouses is too restrictive and cannot have logical subcats such as farmgate, barns, etc.... After all, the farm is the top level geographical item which is known by the people, all the rest are components of it. --Foroa 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you would have read my request exactly, you would have read my proposal to use regional subcategories of Category:Farm buildings, which ought to be subordinate to both Category:Agriculture and Category:Buildings. "Farm buildings" excludes many "Agriculture"-items which are included by "Farms". So it is more specific. For many countries Category:Farmhouses is necessary as well, according to the amount of interesting farmhouses, there. ((written after the next))--Ulamm 17:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On Top of the Category:Farms itself, I've written a guideline how to categorize more specificly. Surely this guideline ought to be accomplished.
  • Uploading their photos, many users woun't look at the page of the category.
  • When they see that the category is shown in red, they will look at Category:Farms and read the guideline.--Ulamm 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see the discussion as Category talk:Farmhouses by country. In short my opinion (as voiced over there): I think that "Farms" should stay and that "Farmhouses" should be a subcategory of Farms. "Farms" should be subcategory of "Agriculture". Deadstar (msg) 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion above. Some of the "Farms in Portugal" have been moved to "Manors in Portugal". I can not agree with this, since those buildings belong to a "Farm XX" (Quinta de ...). When looking for them the word "Farm" will be used for research. No one calls them "Manor of..." but "Farm of...". Lusitana 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Deadstar. As I too suggested on some discussions page, "farmhouses" would merely be a subcategory of "farms". (It might be a level too deep however, and an unpractical extra level of categorisation... I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it's not) --LimoWreck 20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You ought to understand, that the words of different languages aren't congruent. If some people say: "Everybody knows, what a farm is", that is wrong. Everybody has his imagination of "farm", but these imaginations are quite different.
  • Many contries of Europe had a "liberation of farmers" in nineteensth and the first half of twentieth centrury. In that view farmers were and are rural lower and middle class. The owners of those Portugese "qintas" presented in the commons are upper class, obviously. Farms owned by upper class persons in England are called "manors".
  • Such questions are the reason, why I urge for a better specification than "farm", which is 90% identcal with agriculture.--Ulamm 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

[edit] Category:Corse

Corse has been merged to Category:Corsica, but Category:Brittany has just been merged to Category:Bretagne. Category:Normandie was previously merged to Category:Normandy and deleted. However we haveCategory:Burgundy being merged to Category:Bourgogne. Is there any consistency in all this? Are we expected to be consistent? --Man vyi 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please! Let the people of a country name their regions, cities and rivers! In the previous discussion, I read : “UK English should be used for UK related subjects”. Why French names should not be used for French subjects? ‘Corse’ is the French name of this island, region and people. Wikimedia should respect that. --Fr.Latreille 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is a multi-lingual project, with the exception of category naming. Category names should be in UK English (en_UK locale). This does not have anything to do with (a lack of) respect, it has to do with future support for multi-lingual category naming. If the categories are a mess now, it will be a s**tload of work to correct later. Siebrand 09:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Saurornithes

Hi, User:200.40.88.182 has created some categories for birds that are not justified:

Is this so? I prefer a wait-and-see approach. Over at Insects there are too many pics (and unidentifiable pics) not to make a complete taxonomic tree of categories. For birds though I don't think it will ever be necessary to go that deep.
  • In the future the phylogenetic studies will create thousands of higher nodes in the tree of life. Wikicommons will certainly not create a category for all of them, because Wikicommons requires only sorting categories (that is main taxons in the case of biology).

Conclusion: I propose to suppress Carinatae, Neornithes, Odontornithes, Saurornithes which have been created recently by the same User:200.40.88.182
Cheers Liné1 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree except maybe keep Neornithes. Odontornithes and Saurornithes are not used in recent works anyway. Both are 19th century vintage taxa; the former is completely paraphyletic (with 2 contained genera which are not at all close relatives) and the latter is also paraphyletic or the same as Aves (if Aves includes Archaeopteryx).
BTW all of these are ranked taxa.
Carinatae is valid (ranked and phylogenetic) as a taxon but may not be so as a phylogenetic/systematic entity (as Hesperornithes are too derived to really rule out that they are carinates with full certainty). Neornithes is the only taxon of the 4 that is indisputably good, valid, well-defined and -accepted. It might thus be kept - or not, because it would include most of Aves.
I would even get rid of neo/paleognath cats and simply have all orders listed at Aves. Then however one would want to add Enantiornithes and other above-order taxa at Aves too, at the very start of the subcat list there (use "| " or "|*" at the end of the category tag). Or perhaps simply use the Extinct Birds category, which contains all these taxa as subcats already. Dysmorodrepanis 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree suppress all four categories. --Rooivalk 19:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Keeping only Neornithes as a single(?) category under Aves simply does not make sense for sorting.
I agree with Dysmorodrepanis's idea of having all Orders listed at Aves. --Rooivalk 08:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Question: What taxonomic systems are we using? Sibley-Ahlquist_taxonomy says that it is partially used on Commons and it includes Neornithes according to en:Galloanserae. If so, Neornithes should be kept, I think. Delete the other categories. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

[edit] Category:Landmarks in Seattle

Reasons for discussion request: After creating Category:Landmarks in Seattle and placing a lot of images and categories in it, I realized that I might not have made the best choice of category name. My intent was specifically the city's officially listed landmarks, per the Department of Neighborhoods, but in retrospect, the category name does not convey that clearly. For example, the U.S. has a concept of a National Historic Landmark, several of which are in Seattle; also, the term "landmark" can be used loosely and subjectively. Any suggestions for renaming this? -- Jmabel | talk 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Historical buildings in the United States

I can't work out what, if anything, would be the criteria for inclusion in this category. If it means something, there should be a clarifying note. There's not much in it; my suspicion is that that it should go away, and that anything here that is not already otherwise adequately categorized should go in Category:Buildings in the United States, or better yet a more geographically specific category. - Jmabel | talk 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The word "historical" carries the connotation of not being around anymore; otherwise, they'd just be "buildings" in the United States. Not all of the buildings in that category appear to fit that criterion, however. They may be "historic", which I would say probably does deserve a category, but I wouldn't call them all "historical". Powers 16:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, as far as I understand, the intent was probably "historic" rather than "historical", but even so: isn't that completely subjective? We have categories for well-defined things like Registered Historic Places. - Jmabel | talk 01:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I looked but couldn't find any such categories. I thought this was an attempt to rectify that, but I could be wrong. Could you point me to the registered historic places categories? Powers 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Military animals

Reasons for discussion request: I went and started this one, having completely failed to find the existing Category:War animals. But even now I've found it, I think Category:Military animals still needs to exist (see the content of this cat for an eg). So, I propose the following structure: