Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/06

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

June 2012[edit]

Category:Crystal structures of proteins[edit]

Contains only images which would better fit in the Category:Ribbon diagrams. Copied already all images in this category into Category:Ribbon diagrams. --Torsch (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:2012 Summer Olympics torches[edit]

There is a duplicate category at Category:2012 Summer Olympics torch relay that this can be merged to. Mike Peel (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As creator of the 2012 torch relay category, I'd just like to point out that the "torch relay" category has a broader scope than the "torches" category. The "torch relay" category contains things like maps of the torch relay route and photos of support vehicles etc.. which are involved in the relay. These things could not really go in to the "torches" category, it would not make sense as they are not torches. This is why I created the "torch relay" category even though the "torches" category already existed. I think you have a valid point that there is definitely an overlap between the two categories though and some redundancy there. Certainly there's potential for confusion, but my point is that the two categories are not exact duplicates. Previous years have used both sets of categories. Perhaps the current solution of just having the "torches" cat as a subcategory of the "torch relay" category is suitable. I'm pretty neutral on keeping it as it is now or merging in to the "torch relay" cat. I think solution either is acceptable, but I agree with you that it at least needed to be discussed. Regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Without proper documentation, we cannot smell that. --Foroa (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, what needs discussing here is probably the two original parent categories Category:Summer Olympics torches and Category:Summer Olympics torch relays. I have tried just to fit the 2012 sub-category (which I recently created) in to the correct place in these already existing parent category structures. But I notice for example that Category:Summer Olympics torch relays is a sub-category of Category:Summer Olympics torches. Whereas, conversely, someone else has placed Category:2012 Summer Olympics torches as a sub-category of Category:2012 Summer Olympics torch relay. Which is the opposite way round. The result is at the moment, the structure is inconsistent. So it is debatable what the best course of action is. I think it needs to be sorted out at the parent category level first, before sorting out at this yearly sub-category level. Hopefully consensus can be reached as to what is the best solution. As it's possible to both have elements of a "torch relay" which don't actually include the torch itself, and it's no doubt possible to have images of olympic torches which are not in an active relay, it's perhaps sensible to maintain both category structures, maybe with a "see also" note or something similar. Rept0n1x (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, further to Foroa's request, I have added some documentation to the parent categories Category:Summer Olympics torches and Category:Summer Olympics torch relays. It's not perfect, but it attempts to describe the different purposes of the two category structures. I'm guessing this is along the lines of what the original creators of the categories had in mind. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I hope it's of some small help. I'm also happy to add similar descriptions to the year-based subcategories if need be. Any further discussion welcome. Rept0n1x (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Great. I requested the opinion of Jacklee, the author of those categories. --Foroa (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, that seems sensible. Thank you. Rept0n1x (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Hi, all. I created "Category:Summer Olympics torches" and "Category:Summer Olympics torch relays", but only because the categories "Category:Olympic torches" and "Category:Olympic torch relays" already existed (and were not created by me). I suppose there is a difference between "torches" and "torch relays", but if a lot of images are going to end up in both category trees then we may want to consider a merger: "Category:Olympic torches and torch relays". (Foroa will recognize that I am a bit of a fan of such combined categories when it is difficult for editors to distinguish between them.) This will also solve the (rather metaphysical) issue of whether "Torch relays" should be a subcategory of "Torches" or vice versa. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hi Jacklee, Thank you for the quick reply. Indeed I think that is a very suitable solution, I agree with your plan. It is the only solution which would solve the problem of users confusing the two categories. The crucial point I agree with is the canonical name of the new category tree:- Category:Olympic torches and torch relays. As this does allow anything related to the relays (Police escorts, route maps etc..) in addition to torches to be placed under this structure. Regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Force graphs[edit]

The name of the category is ambigous and its purpose is confusing. There are only 3 images with something like w:graph of a function; these can be confined into Category:Plots involving force like other subcategories in Category:Plots by quantity. Most other images ought to belong to Category:Vector force diagrams, although there are several which presents something obscure. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to categorize as you please. I note that I started this category in 2008. A lot of categories were started initially just to get things started. But many times better category names are found as things evolve. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Journey in Italy[edit]

Nonsense category which is also incorrectly named. No use for this; unknown what the creator wanted with it. Plus, it only consists user galleries. 15:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is a harmless, good category to surf. While there are user galleries, they are more than personal. In fact, you can use them for Wikipedia articles. --George Ho (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Railways in the United States by state[edit]

Parallel structure to Category:Rail transport in the United States by state and used inconsistently. This nomination includes all twenty subcategories. All images have been recategorized. Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Mightn't you have started the discussion before emptying the categories? At this point you've presented us with a fait accompli. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That did occur to me, yes. But no one asked before creating them in the first place and they were haphazardly implemented, with no parallel elsewhere in the project and no organizing principle. I viewed this as a maintenance task, especially since I'd created a couple of them myself (out of ignorance). If there's another state-by-state layer of categorization missing then I'm open to discussing that, and creating it anew. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Let me just reinforce that it wasn't a straightforward merge--stuff in there was horribly mis-categorized. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Southern Pacific Railroad[edit]

This should be merged into Category:Southern Pacific Transportation Company since they're the same company (see for example en.wp's article on the Southern Pacific). Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Southern Pacific Railroad" was the common name for many decades, and much historic media refers to this name. If it is not practical to leave Category:Southern Pacific Railroad as a subcategory, I strongly suggest that it be allowed to remain as a redirect. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I think a redirect is desirable, but the information itself should all be in one category. The use of Southern Pacific Railroad as a sub-category is problematic--what do we mean by that, as opposed to Southern Pacific Transportation Company. As I understand it it's a question of when the name changed, not that one was an operating component of the other. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If the images in the category are from when it was called "Southern Pacific Railroad", the category should remain. If images are only available of "Southern Pacific Transportation Company", no need for the category. This second possibility seems unlikely though. --  Docu  at 20:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That would mean determining when the name change happened, and I'm not sure how sustainable that approach would be. It's all the same company throughout. Another approach might be to finesse the whole thing and call it "Southern Pacific," with no qualifier. Mackensen (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Looking at my copy of the Official Guide of the Railways from late 1962 "Southern Pacific Lines" is used. Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Black marbles[edit]

Notwendigkeit dieser Kategorie ist fraglich. Es gibt kaum schwarze Marmore. Die ursprünglich eingestellten Datein könnten schwarze Kalksteine zeigen oder irgendein anderes Gestein mit einer farblichen Fassung (Farbüberzug) Lysippos (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

please speak in international language :) if I were speaking in Italian you'd understand? All the marbles are limestones, however there are marbles famous blacks: black marble of Ashford, for example ( look here [1] ) and african marbles ([2] ) there are also marble green as "Marmo verde di Prato", marble is very rare and valuable ( look here: [3]) ( or "Porfido verde antico" click :D). this category, as for example the category "White marbles" categorizes simply images of the eye marbles which are of a certain color, for technical classifications of the types of marble there are various categories such as: Category:Marble quarry, Carrara and Category:Ashford Black Marble --Pava (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, unfortunately, you have deleted some files from this category, the template specifies that an operation is not to do, I have ventured to restore them. However, there is the category Category: White marbles --Pava (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Pava, „Marble“ is often a blurred term. A lot of Limestones are known in the art and craft as a „Marble“ (for ex.: „african marble“ etc.). In the geology, limestone and marble are two rocks with very different properties. Sorry, Marmo verde di Prato is a serpentinite, not a marble. Porfido verde antico is a igneous rock, not a marble. The „marble of Ashford“ from Ashford-in-the-Water (Derbyshire) is a bituminous Carboniferous limestone (it-wp: "Il nero di Ashford è una roccia sedimentaria a grana fine, e non è un marmo..."). I try again to regularly check and rearrangement in the category Marble :-). Sorry, for my exemplification.
The Category: White marbles is also unfortunately not useful. The category "Marble" is based on the scientific definition of marble. Marble, a metamorphic rock and limestone a sedimentary rock. See the BGS-File [4] with a definition of marble - PDF-page 4.
In this picture (File:Marble 3.JPG) we see marbles (Rosa Portogallo and others without label), limestones (Nero Marquina etc), Calcareous sinter, travertine (Travertino Rapolano) and serpentinite respectively ophicalcite (Rosso Levanto). kind regards --Lysippos (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
These materials are commonly (not scientifically) known as marbles, and that's enough to make sense of the category. The categories serve to guide those looking for a particular document, our task is to classify the best in order to simplify the search, not that over-scrupulous technique prevents the classification for 90% of the population (average user) --Pava (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
As with melons, flax, oranges, peppers, tomatoes, ... we have to find a coexistence of common names with scientific classification. Obviously, Category:Marbles is not very scientific neither. And do you think that Category:Marble sculptures are always genuine marble ? Comment left by user Foroa
you're right, of course, however, the purpose of commons is different from that of wikipedia: commons aims to deliver multimedia content to those who seek him, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and need an encyclopedic style (scentific. Technical etc. .. etc.. .) certainly does not mean that we neglect terms of scientific commons, but a category or image can have a scientific category and a category of "popular". With regard to the genuineness of a statue, we do not always have enough documents to verify the authenticity of the material, if we know that a statue is made of marble from Carrara, famous author of the well, but if the picture does not release enough information we still need categorizing (though not scientifically but only "popularly") an image in order also to be found by one who do not care that it is carrara marble true or not. It is obvious that if we know for certain that this statue is the marble we remove from Category: marble statues, but we can not take it if we do not know, otherwise we damage the image search on the commons and commons itself. We must understand what is our purpose, to make images available to those who are looking or classify an image carefully at the risk that this will no longer be found by those who look for? --Pava (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Pava, The retrieval of the images is important. I understand your concern. Perhaps we have a misunderstanding? What do you mean by the word "marble". The word is used in four different contexts (scientific term for a rock, small glass spheres, sculptures and as popular term für different polished rocks - marbles, limestones, travertines, granites!!, dolerites!!, serpentinites!! etc.). Marble within the meaning of "The Lord Elgin marbles" (Marbles as a word for sculptures)?
I agree that the Category:Marble sculptures is not very scientific for the question of the material. It may be possible that an incorrectly labeled image is in the wrong category and therefore in an encyclopedic text is an inappropriate use. This may not be our interest. --Lysippos (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
You can include a warning that does not ensure that all media files actually contain the subjects made ​​of marble, and that is not possible, from our information, verify its authenticity and that therefore it is recommended to verify the quality of material before using the material for purposes encyclopedic.
I have always called marble, a stone (made of calcium carbonate) shining. in case it is pure, is white, but which may be of different colors depending on the components that compose it. --Pava (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Metropolitan areas of Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

After creating 10 categories of Metropolitan areas by state, I was wondering should the category be "Metropolitan areas of Georgia (U.S. state)" or "Metropolitan areas in Georgia (U.S. state)"? --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • This is probably splitting hairs, but to me, "metropolitan areas of Georgia" suggests metropolitan areas entirely within Georgia, while "metropolitan areas in Georgia" would include metropolitan areas where even a part of the metropolitan area is in the state. As an example, I would say that the Kansas City metropolitan area is "in" both Kansas and Missouri, but is "of" neither. I'm not even sure if such a distinction is applicable in this case; are there any metropolitan areas in Georgia that reach across into another state also? cmadler (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Human-powered litters[edit]

All litters seem to be human powered. This category seems to be unnecessary. (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides Category:Horse-drawn litters. --Foroa (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Could be moved higher up anyway. --Foroa (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
There are indeed horse powered litters, and possibly powered by other means (oxen, mules, whatever). The great majority of them, are human powered indeed, I suppose, but this distinction makes it possible to categorize by motive power. This category is supposed to only receive images of litters being carried by people, or which are obviously carried by people, since you can't tell from the litter itself if it is drawn by people or by animals.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)