Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

March 2011[edit]


Category should be named "Beschreibung des Oberamts Heilbronn (1865)" because there is another description from 1903, see Category:De Oberamt Heilbronn 2. SteMicha (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing the category name would break a lot of links at de.wikisource, which would have to be corrected. Is this really worth the effort? --Rosenzweig δ 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Where, apart from [1], is the category linked? SteMicha (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
On at least three more pages, [2], [3], [4], perhaps more. But even more important, here at Commons 377 files would have to be changed just to correct something that isn't really a problem, because the later description already has its own category (Category:De Oberamt Heilbronn 2 and, presumably, Category:De Oberamt Heilbronn for the first volume). So is it really necessary to change the category name? --Rosenzweig δ 01:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. How do we close this discussion? SteMicha (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion. --Rosenzweig δ 12:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be disambiguated anyway one day. The longer we wait, the more we'll have problems. Please note that linking to (redirected) commons galleries such as Beschreibung des Oberamts Heilbronn avoids that type of problems. --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Would be the same problem, wouldn´t it? SteMicha (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really. For human navigation, disambiguation is less needed and is easy to solve with hat notes. For a categorisation system and bot categorisation, disambiguation is mandatory, but those don't go through galleries. So categories can be renamed without impacting their galleries and related external links. But category naming, renaming and linking remains de weak point of the Wiki software design. --Foroa (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


Maybe not compleatly useless category but now wrong contents. When I remove them so category will be empty. Avron (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


I suggest merging contents of Category:Riverboats into Category:River ships. Objections? If there's any reason to keep "boats" separate from "ships", then contents must be clearly separated - which goes where. But where's the bright line? Slap me if it was discussed before. I'm sure it was, either here or at en-wiki, but cannot find discussion page. NVO (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is always difficult to divide between ships on inland waters and seagoing ships. Just because there are always ships and boats on both types of water. E.G. tugboats can be found from time to time on the rivers and from time to time on the seas. There we have the problem, not between ships and boats, as this is a known problem, discussed before and will be discussed from time to time. You can put a boat on a ship, not a ship on a boat. But there are exceptions as tugboats, pilot boats, tenders and so on. There might even be a difference in British, American and other English. On rivers you find barges, passenger ships, tugboats towing and tugboats pushing, dredge ships and other service vessels. --have to change location, later more-- --Stunteltje (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's a typical riverboat: File:Lavrinenkov302.JPG. But it's also a river ship. Should it stay in both buckets? I'm afraid that keeping status quo will end up in largely overlapping categories (large Category:Sidewheel riverboats is already in both trees). NVO (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
For me she is definately a ship. (But even in Dutch you can call her a "rondvaartboot".) The problem is that for cargo transport on rivers we have barges, but transporting passengers on rivers no different name/type is used for a ship, passenger ships exist for inland and sea. So merging the categories in Category:River ships can be a solution for these ships, but still she has a Category:Passenger ships (by a certain country). I myself should categorise her as Category:Viking Lavrinenkov (ship, 1989), Category:River cruise ships and Category:Passenger ships of Russia. I don't even see much value in Category:River ships, as we have river cruise ships and barges. In most cases sidewheel riverboats and sternwheelers are special types of passenger ships. The sidewheelers are sometimes tugboats, used inland and at sea. I only see value for not cruising passenger ships, but who knows when they are cruising or used as ferry, hotel and so on. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of my fellow participants here can participate in multiple languages, or are fluent in multiple languages. I want to remember that the commons is supposed to serve participants of all languages.

    It has always seemed to me that a word like "vessel" includes boats, ships, sailing ships, submarines, and Category:River vessels would be a good compromise here. Geo Swan (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Solves the problem in the difference between boat or ship. No objection from me, but only a question. Do you intend to add this category to just categories, individual ships/boats by name or to every image of a vessel used on inland waterways? E.g. River vessels are: Barges, River cruise schips, Cable ferries, Reaction ferries and River ferries, we have to split Vehicle ferries, add the category to at lot of Passenger ships and so on? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, please note that passenger vessels on the Mississippi River and other American inland waters are always "boats" or "riverboats", not "ships", even if they are quite large. The only exceptions would be ocean going vessels that happened to be on a river temporarily. Also, I have never heard the term "rivership" or "river ship" in American or British usage to describe any vessel, passenger or cargo.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Brühl ceated new Category:Self-propelled barges and it gives us the possibility to integrate the Barges / Riverboats categories, but with another category-name: Category:Barges and Riverboats. I started a discussion on his user page:

I don't think it is a good idea to transfer barges to your new category, unless they are not to trace by name. Unless you have the intension to transfer about 1000 barges yourself to that category. First to find out wether or not old barges were self-propelled by the date of the image. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
In some respect you are surely right. But whenever I searched in Category:barges, I found it not being sufficiently structured. Especially this official types of vessels (page 4) not yet could be found by categories. Auf deutsch gibt es schon seit einiger Zeit den Artikel de:Gütermotorschiff (und de:Tankmotorschiff). Now it makes sense to connect the article Gütermotorschiff and Category:Self-propelled barges by commonscat. Of course, it is not always easy to recognize a barge as self-propelled. In doubt, you simply should avoid any transfer. I especially started to transfer only such vessels that are seen in movement. --Brühl (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

and it is wrong in my opinion to restrict to European regulations. Better to make the discussion wider and it brings us at this older discussion. I think it is a good idea to use the same system as given on page 47 in the publication of the Dutch Inland Navigation Promotion. (About half of the West European inland shipping fleet is Dutch.) They give a non-official deviation in:

  • Motorised freight vessels
  • Motorised tankers
  • Push boats
  • Tugs
  • Towing barges
  • Passenger vessels
  • Freight push barges
  • Tanker push barges
  • Towing vessels (mainly Austria)

In my opinion it is a good idea to integrate the Category:Riverboats and Category:Barges in Category:Barges and Riverboats with sub-categories like this. Besides: it makes it possible also to split in the sea-going Category:Passenger ships (with an IMO number for the newer ships) and inland Category:Passenger vessels (with an ENI number for European passenger ships).--Stunteltje (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a problem in the USA and (I think) Britain. A "barge" in the USA is never self-propelled. It is usually simply a rectangular vessel with a sloping bow. They are very different from the powered barges prevalent in Europe and combining the categories would confuse. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


Copied from the Village Pump at user:Jacklee's suggestion. At first sight it seems rather sensible but if we look into it we see, among other things:

  • A museum that does not seem to be radically different from other art museums
  • A few artistic techniques or themes (Category:Tondo, Category:Contrapposto). They have nothing special compared to hundreds of similar themes
  • Category:History of painting that just contain a few paintings that are no different from thousands of paintings on Commons.

Possibly we could make the category more sensible. But if we include everything that is somehow related to art history I seems to me that it would be so broad that there would not be any real benefit over Category:Art.--Zolo (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (...)

I agree we need to better define the scope of overarching categories, and a good way is to provide a short description upfront. Obviously if a shallow definition of art history (like applied to Category:Landscape design history) is used by some editors, than all art (or even any human created object) is also art history, so that the category is rendered meaningless. --ELEKHHT 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
To me the simplest solution is to delete this category alltogether. Category:History of painting has just 8 files, all other are simply categorized in other subcategories of paintings and it does not seem to raise any problem. Categories like category:1622 paintings and category:Cinema in the 1930s are quite clear and quite maintainable while the word "history" that is quite ambiguous, which cold produce useless complications. --Zolo (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Because of licence and FOP limitations, 99 % of art on Commons is history and belongs in "xxx by period, style, era..." cats. And anyway, the title should be "History of art".--Foroa (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No, no, no! History of art is very different from art history. Unfortunately at the moment HofA redirects here, which itr should not. This category is needed if only for the art historians' categories. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question does it mean you agree that this category should be merged with category:Art ?--Zolo (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, most of it, but not a brutal merge. History of art has only a place when there are exhibitions, studies and books that span a large period of art, so it will come back one way or another, for example the Category:History of cinema, fashion or other art forms in Category:Cultural history. Category:Art history of Brazil needs to be structured "by period" I guess. Category:National Museum of Women in the Arts should stay too. So finally, one cannot call it a real merge. --Foroa (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it can be useful for "studies and books that span a large period of art", and perhaps for Category:Art historians but I'm not sure for Category:History of cinema. We do not really use Category:History of painting and there does not seem to be any problem with that. Sure, cinema is a younger art and a larger proportion of our files are related to current cinema (living actors etc), but I think we could adopt a classification similar to that of paintings without any major problem. I'm not sure about Category:National Museum of Women in the Arts. This is about women in art history but we could also say that the Louvre -and many many other museums- are about the history of art. It seems simpler to use Category:Art museums in all cases.--Zolo (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • History of art is very different from art history. Unfortunately at the moment HofA redirects here, which it should not. This category is needed if only for the art historians' categories. "History of art" should just go to "Art", Category:History of painting to painting etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hotels in Australia[edit]

The term "Hotel" is an ambiguous one in Australia, with at least 2 separate but linked meanings. The first is the standard English meaning per en:Hotel. The second is as a common name for what is called in the United Kingdom and Ireland (and elsewhere I assume) a en:Public House aka "Pub".

For historic reasons many pubs in Australia doubled (or were founded) as places to accomodate travellers and hence the most common nomenclature for Australian pubs is along the lines of "X Hotel" i.e. "Royal Hotel", "Commercial Hotel" "Grand Hotel" "Railway Hotel" etc. etc. While some of these places offer accommodation, they would not be considered "hotels" in the international sense of the word but rather they would be considered "pubs". Indeed, the common Australian term for these venues, regardless of name, is "Pub" although "Hotel" is also sometimes used.

This has lead to Category:Hotels in Australia and its subcategories containing both hotels in the international sense (i.e. "Sheraton Hotel", Mercure Hotel", "Holiday Inn" etc.) and Australian pubs. Of course some places like Lorne Hotel are both hotels and pubs! The subcategories also reflect this confusion with some called "Hotels in X" and others called "Pubs in X". See also Category:Pubs in Australia which duplicates somewhat the existing "Hotels in Australia" structure and content.

While the meanings are linked historically in Australia and some places may be both hotels and pubs, there is a clear differentiation between places that are primarily accommodation providers and primarily drinking establishments and the commons categorisation should reflect this. How this should happen, I am not sure - hopefully this discussion will help clarify the matter. --Mattinbgn/talk 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not categorise pubs (drinking places) as pubs, and categorise hotels (accomodation places) as hotels? If there are places where they are significantly both then can we categorise them twice - as pubs and hotels? -- 01:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The legal basis of the separation in Western Australia (fellow eds please correct me if I get this wrong) is that accommodation free drinking locations are known as Taverns, while accommodation utilising locations are Hotels - I fail to see where the usage of Pub has any credence in such circumstances - but would be intrigued to see where all this is going SatuSuro (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is something which will always be problematic, you will always have "hotels" which are both pubs and hotels (locally [Wagga Wagga] they are the Victoria Hotel, Romanos Hotel, Union Club Hotel, Palm and Pawn Hotel, ect) but then you get the pubs which use the hotel name even though they have no accommodation (e.g. Black Swan Hotel) then you have hotels which may have a "bar" but not a "pub" (e.g. Pavilion Hotel). The other issue is where should Taverns (e.g. Thomas Blamey Taven) be placed? I've not yet made up my mind as this is rather a complex issue. Bidgee (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

SatuSuro is correct in respect to Western Australia - under the Liquor Licensing requirements a Hotel licence relates to premises which permits the sale & consumption of liquor on the premises, where accomodation is provided and a Tavern is a premises which permits the sale & consumption of liquor but doesn't have accomodation. It is further complicated with the introduction of a Small Bar which is a premises which permits the sale & consumption of liquor but with a maximum capacity of 120 people at any one time. I would suggest that "Pubs", "Taverns" and "Bars" should almost be grouped in one category and "Hotels" in another but acknowledge that some "Pubs" can also be categorised as "Hotels" due to their historic nature. Dingo dude (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It may suit WA but would it suit the other states and territories? Bidgee (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Good question - I simply pointed out the difference as I know it for WA - as to whether there is a one size fits all solution for Australia I havent the foggiest - I dont know the licensing laws of the other states - somehow pubs seem a problematic category and I know my personal preference would be to rid of it - but hey - hope someone has a better handle on all this than I have SatuSuro (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • All can be under a main licensed establishments in foo with a description/definition of this category contains establishments licensed to supply liquor and or provide accommdation as defined by the xxxx licensing act that can then cover wineries, breweries, distilleries etc as separate categories as well all of which can cross cat to appropriate national//international equivellants. As long as each category is as defined by an act then it should standup to futur discussions. Gnangarra 14:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the point is being missed here. We want categories that are useful. The natural meanings of public house and hotel/motel/inn/accommodation are distinct so we should be using distinct categories. Yes, plenty of places fall under both categories and that's fine -- they get to be in 2+ categories. A category called something like Category:Public houses in South Australia should be obvious. The only problem that remains is the nomenclature to be used for the accommodation category. In the interest of making it as simple as possible I would avoid the use of "hotel" (since there are motels and inns deserving the cat) and call it something like Category:Public accommodation in South Australia. Donama (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I havent missed the point I've siad each state uses different definitions and terms these places are defined under a state governent act of some kind so the naming of state categories should be that which is consistant/defined with the act. Gnangarra 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't think it is practical to expect contributors to undertake a search of the relevant licensing laws merely to categorise a photograph. To my mind at least, it is not so important that categories are legally rigorous as it is that they are useful for the purposes of Commons users. If I am looking for photographs of Australian pubs I am not really interested in the differences in licencing laws between states (or even between Australia and other countries) I just want to find photographs of what are commonly called pubs. I agree with Domana that "Hotel" is not a useful term for this purpose. -- Mattinbgn/talk 07:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to the party as usual but my 2¢ is that a hotels category isn't very helpful. Definitions apparently vary and users of the categories cannot be expected to know the differences between hotels, pubs and taverns. Moondyne (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


As a topical category it shall include only BW photography (art), thus should be renamed "Black and white portrait photography". All images should be merged into "Black and white photographs" (tag type category denoting media type). ELEKHHT 06:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This CfD is result of the preliminary discussion at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/03#Duplicating the whole category system ?
Accordingly it is proposed that all subcategories of "Black and white photographs of ..." type shall be renamed and/or merged. --ELEKHHT 06:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The categories BW photographs of gardens, landscapes, parks and plans as their descriptions state also mix topical categories with media type. If any images belong to Landscape photography those could be moved to "Black and white landscape photography" otherwise merge. --ELEKHHT 07:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that it is a good idea to mix up photography (techniques, tools, technology) and photographs. I oppose against a move to cats like "Black and white landscape photography" which is against the commons (modular, extensible) naming habits, "Black and white photography of landscapes" for techniques, "Black and white photographs of landscapes" for pictures is more correct. --Foroa (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the last part of Elekhh's suggestions was just for cases where there would be any illustrations suitable for this. For these, we might want to add "technique" to the category name. We could also hold back this part until we actually got some suitable illustrations. --  Docu  at 12:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant, thanks for clarifying. --ELEKHHT 20:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds by creating Category:Black and white photography by subject and adding all the categories above plus more. I think there are some indisputably useful subcategories of Category:Black and white photography that aren't subject to debate but those in the former category are not photographs about B&W photography so much as examples of B&W photography. I can see both sides of the argument on whether or not they are useful categories, but I thought I would separate them clearly. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people is using category like black and white photographs of so i propose a small revolution

  1. Not to mix photographs and photography
  2. Rename category:black and white photographs in category:black and white photographs (flat list) or category:black and white photographs (media type) or another similar thingummy. Same treatment for category:monochrome photographs.
  3. Create again category:black and white photographs as root for all category:black and white photographs of... categories
  4. Rename category:photographs in category:particular photographs or category:exemplificative photographs or another more suitable just to be clear that category:photographs is not like Category:paintings and people photos go under category:people

--Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


Is there a concise English alternative to de:Eisgang, or should it stay under a German name? ~ NVO (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Whats about "ice drift"? Drift ice means "Treibeis". --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
There exist categories Drift ice and Pack ice but I'm not sure about meaning nuances. --ŠJů (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Eisgang, in my understanding, is strictly for rivers in spring. It's mostly about drifting downstream, but the real fun starts when ice piles up into a natural dam, starting a major flood. en:Drift ice, on the other hand, describes primarily open seas. NVO (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It's obvious that English Wikipedia misses out this theme. But according to Google searching, "drift ice" or "ice drift" is used also for river ice during spring thaw. Maybe, some river subcategory should be created. --ŠJů (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


Empty category moved to Category:Cygnus olor (juvenile swimming) by Winterkind with the following comment: "there is not swan subspecies called C. olor swimming, therefore move" :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As Commons is used by People who may have a problem with english language it may be a good idea, to separate species name an english parts of the category name by a bracked, so that one can see that no subspecies named "C. olor swimming" is meant with the category name. In this case every single category concerning swimming birds should be renamed accordingly. See also: Category:Cygnus olor swimming --Kersti (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Up to now not all categories concerning swimming birds are moved. I didn't really wantz this change, but it would have been ok if the whole work had been done. Like this it is not a good idea. Therefore I think now, that this change should be revertet as almost all categories concerning swimming birds are without these brackets! --Kersti (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Industrial locomotives of Britain[edit]

I propose to rename these categories to "... of the United Kingdom", eventually subcategories "... of England" can be created.

Most of categories of Britain are redirected to categories of United Kingdom, the category Category:Great Britain contains no similar subcategories. Themes of United Kingdom (excluding rivers) are divided - if they are - by its internal countries (England, Walles, Scotland, Northern Ireland), not by islands.See the whole category tree Transport in the United Kingdom, Rail transport in the United Kingdom, Rolling stock of the United Kingdom, Locomotives of the United Kingdom. See also Category talk:Industrial electric locomotives of Britain. ŠJů (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Rail transport of Great Britain should be kept separate from rail transport of Nothern Ireland (and both can then be sub-categories of Rail transport of the United Kingdom). GB & NI use different gauges (NI uses the same broad gauge as the Republic of Ireland), this is a distinction worth keeping for railway matters.
There is little benefit to creating sub-categories for England, Scotland & Wales. Possibly so for geographically distinct features such as stations or bridges, but not for operating companies or rolling stock. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Rename to '...of the United Kingdom' and then create the necessary sub-categories when they become overpopulated. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (The proposal corrected. --ŠJů (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC) )
Given that they're GB, not NI (we have only a handful of NI images), then why not do it right instead? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure that just industrial railways have different gauge in GB and NI? If you want to propose some categorization restructuring, the complex category tree of UK should be revised. It is not a good solution to have 4 categories incompatible with categories of all other themes. Btw., as you can see, a standard name for GB should be "... of Great Britain", not only "... of Britain". --ŠJů (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No, of course not - which is why I wrote "Rail transport of Great Britain". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This hyper pedantry about the difference between UK and GB really has no practical use, no one took much notice when it just affected industrial railways, but now the problem has spread to other locomotives creating an unnavigable mess, NI has it's own subcategory and isn't bothering UK cats much, support rename back to 'of the United Kingdom' Oxyman (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Oxyman. Vote for 'of the United Kingdom' --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)