Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01

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

January 2014[edit]

Category:Hera Barberini[edit]

Rename to Category:Hera Barberini statues, to distinguish the type from the archetype (See w:en:Barberini Hera). Danny lost (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we have files for both? --rimshottalk 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


This is, i believe, Italian for a "plaster casting collection", see italian WP, translated by google: The collection of plaster casts is the place where they are kept in plaster reproductions (typo in ancient greek means "chalk") of statues in bronze, marble and terracotta. It is sometimes also referred to as calcoteca, from the Greek root of the word Chalkos, or "bronze", to indicate the material of the works reproduced. The largest collection of plaster casts existing in Italy is the Museum of Classical Art, University "La Sapienza" of Rome. The gallery of plaster casts of Canova Possagno instead retains original plaster casts of works by Antonio Canova. Another permanent collection of plaster casts of the preparatory sketches of the works of the sculptor Michele Tripisciano is present in Caltanissetta in the Palazzo Moncada. RENAME Category:Plaster castings collections or similar. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Paintings in the Vatican[edit]

Rename to Paintings in the Vatican City. The Irregularity is annoying , and it is clearer that it's not identical with Category:Frescos in the Vatican Museums. Danny lost (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. Ham (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


This hand gesture has two meanings -- "V for victory", or "Peace". I suggest this category should have two sub-categories, one for each meaning. For many of these images we can tell the meaning from the context Images where the meaning remains unclear should remain in this, the parent category.

I read that "palm-out" means "Peace" and "palm-in" means Victory. But the images we have contradict that. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I'm not sure it would be that easy to assume the purpose in most cases. And there is actually a third meaning: Palm-in, knuckles-out (Category:Reverse V sign) has traditionally been about as rude as the middle finger in several countries. (See, for example, [1].) When Winston Churchill started using a hand sign to support the "V for Victory" movement, he supposedly switched palm direction after someone explained to him how other social classes viewed the direction the knuckles were pointing. (See V sign#The V for Victory campaign and the victory-freedom sign.) If there was a "V-sign by purpose" split, this would have to be considered, particularly since some non-Commonwealth people tend to make the peace sign in both directions, but (I assume) a Brit or Aussie wouldn't do this without intending a double meaning. Someone British or maybe Australian users can probably explain this further. --Closeapple (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree with the proposed category split. It is often unclear what is meant, and we can't and shouldn't assume a meaning. Also, the distinction between palm-in and palm-out is not universal. --P 1 9 9   14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I haven't seen a proposed category split only a pretty good suggestion for two (or more?) subcategories. The peace sign has never been called the V-sign, except by people who don't know what they are talking about. I have never used the V-sign. The peace sign - always palm toward viewer - has however been a considerable part of my life since 1968. What's urgently missing here, if this is to remain without said subcategories, is an introductory text. Now, there is no reference at all to the peace sign. To complicate matters there is another type of peace sign, often worn as jewelry on a necklace.


  1. Write a brief category introduction immediately which includes the various uses of a V-sign.
  2. Make a main Category:Symbols of peace
  3. Make two subcategories: a. Hand signals for peace (Peace sign) and b. Images for peace
  4. Under a. make subcategory V-sign (peace) with palm out
  5. Under b. make subcategories such as Peace jewelry, Peace symbols in other art
  6. Sort all the pertinant images under these categories
  7. Name change the current category - with the images that are left - to V-sign (victory) with palm in and place a referral at the top also see Category:V-sign (peace) with palm out

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Suggesting that we split it into V-sign (palm in) and V-sign (palm out) with possible subcats for each separate meaning. V-signs are considered vulgar in parts of the world. --Pitke (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


Category:Driving cabs of watercraft[edit]

Boats have cockpits, not driving cabs. This is a whole pile of Just Plain Wrong renames today by user:ŠJů with repeated edit warring to back it up.

See Category talk:Train cockpits for the presumed origin of this mess. Note that boats aren't trains and that there is no reason (other than regular Commons stupidity) to rename one to use the same name as the other. They are different, different terms are applied. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User talk:ŠJů#Edit warring over Category:Boat cockpits

Please stop. First of all it's BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss - not Bold, Revert, Edit war over it.

Secondly, boats don't have driving cabs, they have cockpits. Locomotives have driving cabs and not cockpits (as it took an incredible amount of time to get straight). Now here's the surprising part: boats and locomotives are different. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should discuss instead of headlong reverting and breaking of categorization structure. Cockpits are a type of driving cabs, aren't they? Driving cab is more universal term than cockpits (all cockpits are driving cabs but not all driving cabs are cockpits, thus the universal name should be preferred in the parent categories. I'm not sure all types of boats have really "cockpits" but all boats have any driving stand, either a cockpit or another one. --ŠJů (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
So anything that is a sub-type of <foo> must also have a name based on <foo>? Nonsense. Also will you please stop edit-warring over this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Not, they must not. The question whether all types of boats have really "cockpits" is open to a discuss. --ŠJů (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

End of moved discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If a boat has a cockpit that we have photographed, then it is appropriate to categorize it as a cockpit. If it has a bridge instead, then call it a bridge. What is inappropriate is for it to have either a cockpit, bridge or a poop deck and to call this a "driving cab" instead, because diesel locomotives have driving cabs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Try to answer questions asked in the discussion. You may be right that the driving cabs of boats are mostly named "cockpits". The question is whether ALL driving stands of boats are cockpits. If yes, we can have one category of boats cockpits. If not, we should resolve whether we will have a category of boat driving stands and its subcategory of boat cockpits or only the most universal category for both of them. The next question is whether driving cabs and driving stands of other watercraft (including big ships) can be called "cockpits". The fact the diesel locomotives have driving cabs doesn't implies that buses, excavators or ships haven't driving cabs. --ŠJů (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
So your logic is that not all boats have cockpits, therefore no boats may be categorized as having cockpits?
Not all boats have masts or propellers either. Are you asking that we delete those too? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Try to read and answer the discussion questions and arguments above if you want to contribute to the discussion. Your last questions were answered just in my previous contrubittion already: "The question is whether ALL driving stands of boats are cockpits. If yes, we can have one category of boats cockpits. If not, we should resolve whether we will have a category of boat driving stands and its subcategory of boat cockpits or only the most universal category for both of them." Did you not understand, or you forgot to answer? "My logic" is that the "Cockpits" category tree contained mixed content and the word "cocpits" was misused generally as a term for all driver's stands. Most of the subcategories contained no real "cockpits". The subcategories which contain cocpits only should be named "... cockpits", no doubt about it. However, the subcategories which contain various types of driving stands mixed should use more general name to express the whole scope of the category. If you would like to have more specialized subcategories, you can bring your distinguish criteria and classify and separate the content. Set to this work if you want! Anyway, the more general categories are more needfull than the more specialized ones. --ŠJů (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not our role to introduce neologisms -- solely because they make sense to some of us personally. I agree with those respondents above who have challenged whether there has ever been a single nautical expert who ever used the term "Driving cabs of watercraft", or "Driving cabs of sailboats", "Driving cabs of motorboats".
In some discussions I have argued for using a less frequently used term, because the more frequently used term was ambiguous. But the proper order should be DCA -- Discussion, Consensus, then Action -- not the Bold, Revert, Discuss some have claimed we should use here.
We already have the perfectly acceptable Category:Bridges (nautical), which has the great advantage that it is consistent with the usage of actual nautical experts.
Note: Many, perhaps most of the images that User:ŠJů took out of existing categories to shoehorn into one of his or her new "driving cabs" categories were OPEN cockpits -- they weren't enclosed cabs at all. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:ŠJů#Could you please explain.... --ŠJů (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Rather than trying to defend taking the elements from existing categories, and placing them in your new categories, could you instead address the concerns other respondents have voiced over the categorization you advocate?

Specifically, no nautical expert uses the term "driving cab" for any kind of watercraft. I accept, at face value, the term is used for buses and trains, but it is not used, by experts, for watercraft.

I acknowledge there are times when we should consider using terms not used by experts -- but those are all instances were experts in various nations use different terms. The engine that lifts or lowers vessels floating in caissons of water are called "boat lifts" in the UK, "ship lifts" in some other nations, and are called "lift locks" in Canada. I personally think the WMF projects should use the term "lift lock", even though no one uses the term outside of Canada, because both "boat lift" and "ship lift" are ambiguous, and can refer to a crane that lifts a vessel out of the water, for maintenance or winter storage.

You have introduced a non-standard term -- one used no-where in the real world, and, near as I can tell, you have offered zero meaningful justification for using this non-standard term.

No, that other contributors incorrectly referred to trains and buses having "cockpits" is not a meaningful justification to rename watercraft's cockpits "driving cabs" -- particularly since most watercraft's cockpits are open, not enclosed. Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Everybody can participate in the discussion and everybody can invite other user to the discussion. Please, don't shatter and duplicate the discussion and discuss at appropriate disussion pages, not at my personal user page. My arguments and questions answer in the discussions where they were asked. I'm waiting for your constructive proposals and arguments there. Thank you. --ŠJů (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

End of moved contribution.

It is really not our role to "introduce neologisms". Thats why we should prefer descriptive names in common words if the special terms are not compatible and universal enough. Wikimedia Commons should be structured primarily not by specificity and anomalies and of English terminology but primarily by essence of the content. That's why I'm awaiting your constructive participation in the discussion.
Thank you for the link Category:Bridges (nautical). This is a good example of a category which is maybe correctly named but was quite deficiently categorized. The category had no appropriate relations to essentialy and functionally analogous devices/places of other watercraft and vehicles, even with bridges of non-maritime ships! Thats also a cause why some categories of captain's bridges were also lost in the categorization tree and not categorized under this category. It was really a good example of bad categorization and we should reflects its causes. Thank you for finding of this lost and almost orphan category. Let you reflect the distinction between systematical structural categorization and pure tagging.
Btw., the adjective dissambiguation in brackets is not just the preferred form – wouldn't be "Nautical bridges" better name, as well as their examples as "navigation bridges" or "admiral's bridges" or "compass platforms" use the adjective normally? Consider also whether the category name is specific enough (towards boarding bridges, observation bridges for passengers etc.) As regards appropriateness of the name "Bridges (nautical)", the English article about it is poorly referenced and verified and contains no link to any source which uses the term "Bridge (nautical)" or compares the term with related terms.
As regards your objections, I can share most of them with you and we should search for their solution together. However, the situation that category of "cockpits" contained all images of driving stands (even though most of them are not really "cockpits" and many of them are not even "cabs"). We should accept the need for such a category but search for any more appropriate name for it and check and thínk out naming and structure of its subcategories and sort the content.
As you mentioned, the stand/post of the person driving any vehicle (generally) can be in a cab or cabin (the distinction and use of the words and their equivalents can vary by language and by type of vehicle). The cab or cabin can be designated exclusively for the driving person or shared with other persons or purposes (even a driving cab of railway motorcar can be shared with a conductor but it is still a driving cab). You are right that boat or truck cab are mostly called simply "a cab", as far as such vehicle have not more different cabs. However such cabs fall under driving cabs even though this purpose is not emphasized usually. However, you are right that many stands of driving persons are neither cockpits nor cabs and we should search for more appropriate name for all driving stands.
Unfortunately, you focused primarily to negation of the words "driving cab" instead to constructive classification of driving stands and precision of the distinguishing criteria. You even didn't comment which of the 4 examples depicts cockpits, in your view. I could similarly give examples of boat driving stands which are probably not "cockpits". If you want to be helpful, propose a name of the root category for all types of driving stands of all types of watercraft, select images from "cockpits" categories which don't depict cockpits, add a clear category description what should be consider as cockpits and waht shouldn't, classify the images and subcategories and create appropriate sister and parent categories to the "cockpits" categories. If the content is not classified by type of driving stands, the names of the categories should be correspondingly general. --ŠJů (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Before you bring some more systematic classification with clear criteria and definitions, try to discuss and classify these examples:

I say nothing about it, I'm awaiting your opinions. If you both will assert "that all are cockpits", I have no problem to accept it. However I peronally have problem to distunguish "cockpits", "bridges" and possibly something else and I await your knowledge and help. --ŠJů (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No reaction yet? --ŠJů (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No answer here? No objection, no opinion, no propsal? --ŠJů (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverting premature category emptying[edit]

User:ŠJů moved elements from Category:Cockpits (sailing) to the new Category:Driving cabs of watercraft. This has the very unfortunate, and IMO disruptive effect of leaving the earlier category empty. Since empty categories are routinely deleted this is absolutely the wrong order.

Sorry User:ŠJů, but if you thought those images really belonged in a category called "Driving cabs of watercraft" then you should have left the images where they were, and initiated a discussion here where you made the case for the new category replacing the earlier category. If and only if your proposal gained a consensus here should the elements have been moved.

Categories suck as an organizing tool. There is no easy way to see which elements a category has held in the past. There is no easy way to see why elements were added, or why they were removed. Until the exisiting category feature is superceded by a superior organizing feature it falls to all of us to be polite, cooperative, and disciplined about how we use categories, and, no offense, this absolutely precludes what some feel is a disrespectful hijacking of the existing elements of earlier categories, making those earlier categories vulnerable to deletion because they have become empty... Geo Swan (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

When I moved any content to another category, I always treated properly with the previous category (as well as in this case). Nothing from the category content disappeared. However, as I can see, Geo Swan is who emptied some category and caused such "disruptive effect of leaving the earlier category empty", without any link to the new category. Such a method is really imperfect and premature.
The previous situation was that all categories of driving cabs and driver's stands of all types of vehicles (including trains, trams, buses, funiculars etc.) was called "cocpits". Even though some of vehicles (small airplanes, racing automobiles or small boats) have really cocpits, the term was really discussed and criticized as inappropriate as a general term for all types of vehicles. And, even though languages and branches use various special names for special types of driving stands, there is no reason to shatter the categorization structure and to suppose that cockpits have nothing to do with other types of driver's cabs and stands.
The discussion is in motion and you are invited to participate in it, if you didn't noticed the previous discussions and didn't contributed to them and if you want to react to the questions and arguments from the discussions. If you will have any constructive proposals how to distinguish different types of driving stands of watercraft reliably and how to name the root category for all such special categories, your proposals are welcomed.
For a start of your participation in the discussion, try to express your opinion toward the questions and problems mentioned above. Unfortunately, I cannot found your opinion to them. Half-baked reverts ar not sufficient for any solution. --ŠJů (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Why did you start edit-warring to revert me, even after I asked you to stop, when I started correcting these undiscussed and incorrect changes? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Andy Dingley If your edits (even thought reverts) would be perfect, without disruption of categorization structure, I need not to correct them. However, your reverted categories fell out of the categorization structure, categories emptied by you were not treated by any appropriate link or template etc. Btw., you have permanently the opportunity to join the constructive discussions and I´m awaiting your opinions and answers. --ŠJů (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • User:ŠJů, I accept at face value that you simply don't understand why your emptying of Category:Cockpits (sailing) was premature, and a problem. I accept at face value that you don't understand why my reversion of your unilateral emptying of that category, and restoring the status quo ante, was not disruptive.
You offered me a link, above, as some kind of example. But it means nothing to me. Let me, in turn, offer you an example, from my contributions. In December 2012 I initiated a discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Gun turrets. I thought my proposed re-organization made sense. But I waited and gave other contributors a chance to weigh in. Only after other contributors had had a chance to voice their opinions did I carry out that re-organization. And I feel very strongly that this is the approach you should have followed. Geo Swan (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Geo Swan, your objection was that somebody left emptied categories without appropriate treatment. I answered that not I but Geo Swan (and Andy Dingley also) were who left some emptied categories without any link and without any explanation why the categories were emptied and where their content was moved. Thats simply a clear neglect and fault, independently on the fact which variant of categorization structure or naming you (or I) preffer. Just this fault (as well as disruption of categorization strucutre) can be a cause of troubles you described. A finished renaming/moving of any category cannot cause such troubles, even if the new name is not preferred by you (or by me). However, I'm not sure you understand it already. --ŠJů (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, if you're so insistent on presenting a pejorative version of other editors' actions:
I did not empty any categories. I did not create any empty categories. I re-enabled some valid and recently-emptied categories by removing their redirection tags and restoring their correct categories. I also redirected the freshly created and incorrectly-named categories to point back to the correct locations. I had to do this repeatedly as you kept reverting me, even after I'd asked you to stop and after I'd opened this CfD.
These correct categories were then empty. However there were also category redirects pointing to them, so that 'bots would repopulate them. This was the appropriate way to repair the recent mis-categorisations. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
If you (or I) make any halfway edit, it its worse than to use inappropriate name only (even if both names are inappropriate, the previous as well as the new). Well, let's focus rather to the open guestions and constructive proposals and solutions. --ŠJů (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Aircraft cockpits[edit]

It's not a good idea to rename Category:Aircraft cockpits to Category:Driving cabs of aircraft either. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, thank you for the link. If you have really systematic concern in the problem of "cockpitmania", join the whole discussion and answer the systematic questions. Some levels and branches are solved already, some are avating for proposals and discussions. For example, to work on Automobile cockpits and Truck cockpits is desirable now. I would pleased to believe that you ideas are better but it seems to be very difficult to prompt you to some constructive anwers or proposals. --ŠJů (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing edit warring by ŠJů[edit]

Why have you now created yet another undiscussed category with an invented name? Category:Driving stands of watercraft Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned and thoroughly discussed above in the discussion, driving stands of watercraft can be distinguished to at least two types: cockpits and bridges. Unfortunately, none of the unconstructive revertators proposed objective distinguishing criteria or more precise classification and terminology, but the discussion implied unequivocally that "driving cabs" is not a correct term covering all types of driving stands. To comply with the justified objections from the discussion can be hardly considered as "continuing edit warring". Do you want to propose any better solution? I'm awaiting it always. If you did so already, I didn't notice it, I'm sorry. --ŠJů (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, you attacked also the renamed category even though the renaming was a obliging response to the objections from the discussion. What are your real objection now? Do you mean, "driving" is not appropriate for navigation and do would preffer "control" as the adjective specifying places from where watercraft is controlled? Or you would like even fight against the idea that control stands of vehicles can have an united and structured category tree? Or even you want to defend the previous status independently on the context, all arguments, problems, questions, incorrectness etc. and to impede whatever solution and improvement? --ŠJů (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
By "response" to the discussion, I think you mean, "My first invented name was rejected by others, so I'm going to invent another one, equally novel and groundless in origin". Will you please stop doing this, and will you please stop continuing to do this during the discussion, especially not by spreading it further and further into aircraft and goodness knows where else. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with Andy that the invention and use of yet another neologism is very premature.
Even if, for the sake of argument, you convinced other contributors here that we should use a neologism, in place of the long established English terms, others might conclude that a DIFFERENT neologism should be used, like Category:Driving consoles of watercraft, or Category:Navigation consoles of watercraft. Using your new neologism, before a conclusion has been reached here, is premature.
If you really think a neologism is appropriate, then I urge you to concentrate on making a convincing case for such. Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Geo Swan, I´m very pleased that you come with some constructive proposal at last, though with many useless talks and in inappropriate section of the discussion. Andy Dingley said nothing to the core of the problem, thus I suppose that he has no objections to the your proposal and it can be immediately applied. The remained second problem above awaits your work still. --ŠJů (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit war, captain's cabins and sea captains[edit]

I have some doubts regarding Geo Swans edit war about Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships.

I supposed that Captain's cabins is an approximate synonyme or analogy of the more known term "Captain's bridge", i.e. that it is a post from that the captain works and manages the ship, not only his accommodation room. That's why I supposed that it is a type of driving posts on the ships. I do appologize if I was mistaken. Anyway, the creator of Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships omitted to create or find appropriate parent category of "captain's cabins" and this problem needs to be solved.

However, what I'm not able to understand, why Geo Swan removed this obviously insufficiently categorized category also from the category Sea captain. Do you assert that captain's cabin have nothing to do with the captain? Or it is only your mistake from your ardour and carelessness? Or even this is a symptom of your specific way of understanding of categories generally? Are you able admit any relation between captains and their cabins? --ŠJů (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I dispute I was edit warring:
  1. User:ŠJů, as discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Sea captain, your subject field knowledge of maritime matters falls short of that required to make changes without consulting other contributors first.
  2. There is the principle of Status quo ante -- when there is a disagreement the simplest path is to leave the article, category, whatever, in the state it was in before the agreement, and only change it once the disagreement is resolved and only if the conclusion is that a change is in order.
Yes, Captains and Captain's cabins are related. Generally, workmen, and their tools, are related. For many fields of endeavour we capture that relationship by placing both the workmen, in the case of Astronauts and Cosmonauts, and their tools, in their case space-suits and space-capsules, we had placed them in the same parent categories, in their case space exploration.
We have no consensus that the category for workmen should be the parent category for their traditional tools. For most fields of endeavour we have placed both workmen and tools in the parent cat for the field. Nothing prevents you from trying to make the case for your preferred structure. But please don't act as if you already had a consensus lined up for your personal preference. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Subjects which are specifically related to one specific function or profession should be categorized under the category of the function or profession. Especially when they are even named after it. We categorize by item here and the categorization is modular, not only a simple hyponymic hierarchy as you assume. However, the content of the category should be structured into suitable subcategories to be not mixed. Also a special sort key for rare or specific types of subcategories is used when there is a need to keep order. Deficient, incomplete and unlinked categorization is clearly not a better way. General principles of categorization are given already, we need not to waste our time with inventing of invented and established principles.
Btw: the factual section above is without your reaction for 3 days still (while you wrote many useless talks elsewhere). While your justified factual objections were accepted immediately, you seems to ignore unresolved questions and to be not willing to participate in the discussion seriously. Pure negativism and factual passivity is not the preferred principle of collaboration on Commons. If you are unwilling to help with the work, you cann't block all others wilfully. You introduced really a mess to the discussion, spreading it to many various places and disrupting its structure. Should I help you to find and resume to you the unresolved problems and unanswered factual questions from the discussion, unless you are able to make it oneself? What is "Status quo ante" in your view? To rename Rolling stock driving cabs back to Train cockpits and its parent category to Cockpits? You have achieved clearly not a consensus on such solution. We need look for the best solution, not to shove our heads into sand as proverbial ostrichs. We need to define and classify various types of driving stands, we need to distinguish essential distinctions from accidental language distinctions, wee need consider the best names for all levels of affected categories, we need to decide how detailed will be the categorization structure at affected levels etc. You got stuck in one particular problem (which was resolved already) and seem to be not able to advance. --ŠJů (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries[edit]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries: [2] Particularly not when they are used in this disparaging manner to imply that you are correcting their mistake, when in fact they had just corrected yours – an error so obvious that you had even left it in place yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing "disparaging" on the fact that I corrected your an obvious mistake and i see nothing missleading on the fact that my revert is labelled as a revert. If you are convinced that captain's cabins at maritime ships have nothing to do with sea captains, you should explain such unexpected assertion. --ŠJů (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Firstly this wasn't my edit
Secondly it's not about captains, it's about your categorisation of captain's cabins as Driving cabs.
Your edits in all this have been inaccurate and inept. Your comments in relation to others since are far from truthful. It's getting increasingly difficult to assume good faith in such conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you please participate in real constructive discussion instead of looking for nonsensical and irrelevant pretexts to attack me? --ŠJů (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

General discussion[edit]

Please notice the general discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Driving cabs of vehicles. --ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Belvedere (Vatican)[edit]

Delete or rename. Category:Cortile del Belvedere is no the other side of the left building. Category:Belvedere Palcae, is a possible name for that building, but it isn't clear how to distinguish it from Category:Apostolic Palace. On the right we have the Vatican Gardens. Danny lost (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this category is supposed to represent, apart from Cortile del Belvedere‎. It's a grouping of several courtyards within the Apostolic Palace? I'm inclined to redirect it to Category:Cortile del Belvedere‎. --ghouston (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sea captain[edit]

Do we have overlapping, redundant categories? Do we really need Category:Ship captains and Category:Sea captain and Captain (nautical)? This category lacks any expository text that could serve to guide contributors as to what it should and shouldn't contain. One might conclude it was appropriate to apply this category to ever individual who had ever commanded a maritime vessel. Well, that would mean this category would contain tens of thousands of images, or more.

A no doubt well-meaning contributor keeps trying add Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships. Is that really helpful?

Should this be used for captains of canal boats, lake freighters, river barges and city fireboats -- fresh-water vessels? Because, for this, Category:Ship captains would be a better choice. Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am going to suggest this category should redirect to Category:Ship captains, and that it should only contain images of captains, while onboard vessels they command. We could include images of former captains; we could include images of former captains, but only while wearing their captain's uniforms -- but I think this would be a mistake. In the US Navy, for instance, an officer might wait a dozen years or more for command of a vessel, and then might only command it for a year, or so. Is it really useful to place images of them in a categories devoted to ship commanders, after or before their brief period of command?

    In the USN, again, some distinguished officers rise to the rank of Captain, while never commanding a vessel. In most navies, the small and medium sized vessels are commanded by Commanders or Lieutenant Commanders. So, I suggest we restrict Category:Ship captains to images of vessel commanders while actually aboard their vessels. Geo Swan (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am going to suggest we should include the commanders of vessels that are not always called ships, like submarines, canal barges, and fireboats. I am going to suggest we should include the commanders of vessels, without regard to their substantive rank. Henry Larsen, the Canadian explorer, was an RCMP Sergeant when he commanded the St Roch in its transits of the Northwest Passage. Geo Swan (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. Captain (nautical) is a gallery, not a category. If the category gallery was improperly categorized, the fault should be immediately and simply fixed, no need to open discussion about it.
  2. Category:Ship captains is a logical parent category of the older category Category:Sea captain. The category Category:Sea captain should be renamed to plural, it's self-evident. The question whether the category Category:Ship captains should have a special subcategory of sea captains is not so important. I personally think that maritime navigation have its significant specificity and is also legislatively distinguishable, though some vessels and captains can operate in both domains. If such special category would not exist now, we really need not to be in hurry to create them. However, i found not so weighty reasons to remove (dissolve, merge) such a long-established category.
  3. I have also no objections if the proposer will to create a more general parent category for all commanders of vessels, though I think, for small boats with one-man crew such a category would be not very useful. However, if Geo Swan is aware of such images which need be moved to the category, it should be created certainly.
  4. The category Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships should be categorized under Category:Captain's cabins and Category:Captain's cabins under Category:Ship captains, there is no question to be asked. However, we can consider whether United States Navy ships are only maritime ships (and their captains only sea captains) or whether United States Navy have also some river ships or sea ships.
  5. The category Category:Ship captains should contain all content related to the item of ship captains. Not only portrets of the captains but also captain's uniforms, captain's documents, captain's cabins etc. Naturally, they can be sorted into appropriate subcategories, according to standard categorization conventions. Generally, we should follow standard categorization conventions and not to devise some unreasoned anomalies only for this category. Let's apply principles used for other comparable proffesions. If the person is known as a captain, his category should be categorized under Ship captains. If the person is only a disposable captain, only the content related to this function should be categorized under Ship captains. --ŠJů (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I nummbered your paragraphs, to make them easier to respond to:
    1. I think your 2nd sentence exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are doing here. Our categorization is not a reflection of one perfect god-given hierarchy. We have human-built hierarchies, that rely on conventions -- agreement. Discussion is required regularly. Skipping those discussions is disruptive. For any field of study, like, for instance, the classification of insect species, based on comparing their differing body parts, there are multiple possible classification schemes. Over the last couple of centuries the biologists who classify insects have agreed on the broad details their classification schemes. However, first, if you look in the right scientific journals you will see biologists are still debating the specific details of their classification. Second, if you go back early enough, in the classification of species, or in other fields of study, there were other organizational schemes, other conventions, that could have been used. Consider calculus. In the Anglosphere Newtown is often recognized as the inventor of calculus, and Liebniz is forgotten. Yet we use Liebniz's notation scheme, not Newton's. For centuries almost the entire world has represented numbers in base ten. But the ancient Mayans and the ancient Sumerians also used base sixty -- it is a legacy of their astrologers that we have sixty seconds to a minute and sixty minutes to an hour.

      So I dispute your notion that "If the category was improperly categorized, the fault should be immediately and simply fixed, no need to open discussion about it."

      Here on the commons we do not, in fact, have One True Classification Scheme -- we have multiple incompatible classification schemes. The extent of the incompatibility isn't always obvious because so much classification remains to be done.

      Classifying using the existing category feature sucks. The category feature is deeply inadqeuate as a mechanism for collaborators to agree on how to classify intellectual content, and the sooner if is replaced with a mechanism with greater memory, better facility for documentation, the better.

    2. When you write that one of those categories is the logical parent category of the other it seems to me you are making the mistake of implying your interpretation is "obvious" -- well I wrote a wiki-essay where I explain why nothing is obvious.

      I will repeat that you seem to be overlooking that there are deeply experienced captains who never served at sea. There are 150 lake freighters that travel the North American Great Lakes. There have been thousands or tens of thousands of deeply experienced captains of these vessels who never served "at sea", because all their experience as an officer, had been on fresh water. Similarly, in Europe, you will find deeply experienced captains whose only experience has been on Europe's rivers and canals.

      I am left guessing as to what you mean by "I personally think that maritime navigation have its significant specificity and is also legislatively distinguishable, though some vessels and captains can operate in both domains." I suspect this is an instance where being an ESL person is what is causing the confusion. I believe that, in English, "maritime navigation" is a term that applies to navigation at sea, navigation on canals, and navigation on natural rivers and lakes -- but I wonder if you might think the term distinguishes between navigation at sea and navigation elsewhere.

    3. I too doubt that when a vessel is operated by a single crew member he or she is referred to as a captain. However, I will yield to a genuine nautical expert on this point. As for your request for a "more general parent category for all commanders of vessels" -- wait a second, shouldn't you explain what is wrong with Category:Ship captains first?
    4. Please look at Category:Space suits and Category:Space suits of the United States. Your insistence that "Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships should be categorized under Category:Captain's cabins and Category:Captain's cabins under Category:Ship captains" makes as much sense as it would to insist that Space suits should be elements of Category:Astronauts. Astronaut is an occupation. A space suit is something used in the space program. Ship captain is an occupation and a cabin is something a mariner uses. You still haven't established why captain's cabin should be an element of Ship captains. Please don't simply claim it is "obvious".
    5. You assert Category:Ship captains should be the parent category for "all content related to ... ship captains [including] ... captain's uniforms, captain's documents, captain's cabins etc." It is something you seem ready to insist upon as if it were "obvious". But we have already categorized Category:Military rank insignia by country. What possible value do you see in your preferred structure?

      ESL time -- I don't know what you mean by "disposble captain". Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • 1. The principle that a gallery should be categorized in the category of identic item is clear and established enough. No need to blather around it. The simple fault is fixed now. Maybe, you was confused that I used one wrong word in my answer, nevertheless the distinction between galleries and categories can be understandable for you. I believe, I need not to explain to you what gallery pages at Commons are.
  • 2. You are right, I didn't anticipate that English applies the term "maritime navigation" also to inland navigation. It sounds very comically to an inhabitant of inland country to call river transport "maritime" but my language have also some illogicalities and oddities (diesel ships are called "parník" = steamship colloquially etc.). Do you deduce from it that all captains of river ships are "sea captains" also? I would like to believe you but some reliable sources supporting your opinion would be required. As soon as you give evidence of such claim, we can merge both categories according to your proposal immadiately. Opinion of some other native speakers at least from GB and US would be also useful before the action.
  • 3. I said nothing against Category:Ship captains. You was who proposed an other and still more general category, and I expressed my agreement/support with the condition that a real need for such category exists here.
  • 4., 5.: Thank you for the notice. The faults are fixed now. It's maybe surprising for you but hyponymy is not the sole type of categorization relation used here. Commons is categorized by topic.
  • When you don't understand a word used by ESL, look the context and consult a dictionary. You talked about "an officer which wait a dozen years or more for command of a vessel and command it for a year, or so." I mentioned a "disposable captain" in the answer in this context. Maybe, connotations of the word "disposable" are a bit hyperbolic and "occasional" would be a better word but I suppose, a native speaker can be also a bit intelligent. --ŠJů (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. I agree there are times when a category should have multiple parent categories. Category:Water Transport on the Hudson River currently has Category:Hudson River and Category:Water transport by river. Some categories should really have more than two parent categories. Some only require one. If a category is going to be the only element in what might otherwise be its logical parent category, don't we skip sometimes skip creating that category?

    Yes, I understand the difference between a category and a gallery page. Note, that gallery page had the expository text the categories were missing, and a category that included that text and those elements could easily have been created.

  2. Yes, languages are full of quirks. Before he was emporer Julius Caesar wrote a book on his conquest of Trans-alpine Gaul. Schoolboys learning Latin had to read it, as an example. Its famous first sentence is usually translated as "Gaul is divided into three parts." But Caesar wrote it when mathematicians still used Roman Numerals, and the language of math was more primitive, and I have read that a literal translation of what he wrote would have been, "Gaul is quartered into three halves." Please don't worry for one moment about "maritime captains". I am glad I could figure out what you really meant.

    No, sorry, I don't think anyone has to prove that Sea captain is synonymous with Ship captain. They are both casual, colloquial terms. We don't have to include every casual, colloquial term in our category system. IMO Ship captain is less casual, less colloquial. Captain, of course, is way overloaded with meanings, in English, with Captain as an army rank, and Captain of Industry, and a bunch of other meanings, which must be disambiguated. But I don't see "Sea Captain" as one of the terms that needs to be disambiguated.

  3. Actually, someone else started Category:Ship captains. I didn't create it, I merely drew it to your attention.
  4. You thanked me for drawing your attention to what you characterize as "faults" in the categorization of Category:Space suits. I thought we had agreed everyone had an obligation to do their best to understand what their correspondents really meant. Are you telling me it didn't occur to you that I was satisfied at the then current state of categorization of Space suits, where it was not an element of Category:Astronaut or Category:Cosmonaut? Did it not occur to you that I was offering that as a counter-example showing we don't always shoehorn the tools in a field in to the category for the workmen in the field? For lots of fields both the tools and the workmen have the name of the field as their parent categories.

    Sorry, your "correction" of this "fault" seems extremely aggressive -- and disrespectful. I am perfectly happy to have you make a case for the general principle that tools commonly belong in the category for a workman in the field that normally uses them. If I list a couple of dozen examples where the parent category for the tools in a field is the name of that field, not the name of the workman, please don't tell me you are going to unilaterally "correct" all of them too?

    1. Category:Marbleworking tools
    2. Category:Milling tools
    3. Category:Textile tools
    4. Category:Hive tools
    5. Category:Beekeeping equipment
    6. Category:Harvest tools
    7. Category:Textile tools
    8. Category:Horology tools
    9. Category:Jewellery tools
    10. Category:Woodworking tools
    11. Category:Alchemical tools
    12. Category:Writing_tools
    13. Category:Mortars (tools)
    14. Category:Stonemason's tools
    15. Category:Glassworking tools
    16. Category:Silversmithing tools
    17. Category:Machining tools
    18. Category:Engraving tools
  5. Okay, your use of the term "occasional captain" -- it is due to your forgiveable lack of knowledge of the differing career paths of merchant fleet officers and naval officers.

    Lecture time. Someone who commands a vessel is entitled to the title captain. For centuries, navies have had vessels too small to merit being commanded by someone with the actual rank of captain. Depending on their size they are commanded by Lieutenants, Lieutenant Commanders, and Commanders. The early USN once had a rank "Master Commandant". Navies that operated in German had those double-barrelled German names, like Kapitan-zur-zee to distinguish between the different ranks who might command a vessel. In English, Lieutenants, Lieutenant Commanders and Commanders, who were in command of a vessel, were addressed by the courtesy title "Captain", although their actual rank was more junior than the substantive rank, Captain. I think you have confused these two terms. Naval officers can reach, or pass through, the substantive rank of Captain without ever being the captain of a ship. Naval officers hold staff positions. Naval officers hold specialty positions. Admiral Hyman Rickover, one of the USN's most important officers, was in the engineering branch, and never commanded a ship.

    For a long time every ambitious naval officer, who wanted to hold their navy's very highest rank, knew he would have to command a ship, at some point in their career. That might still be true in some navies.

    Merchant captains, on the other hand, don't hold shore based administrative positions. Nowadays merchant officers go to a merchant officer school, serve for a time as a cadet or apprentice officer, pass an exam that confirms they have the knowledge to be a captain, and get a "master's certificate". Once they have that certificate they are qualified to serve as a "mate" aboard a vessel. Depending on the size of the vessels they serve on, their job performance, the needs of their company, they can look forward to promotion from third mate to second mate, to first mate, and possibly to be the captain commanding a vessel. If their health permits, and they don't make any huge mistakes, they can expect to serve as a captain for the rest of their career.

    During a huge war, like World Wars One and Two, navies start huge ship-building programs, and have a need for experienced officers to command them. This is where the strategy of giving the best officers a crack at commanding one of the few vessel in the navy, during peace time. When a huge war comes that requires ten times as many captains, there are experienced captains to fill those roles. Huge long wars that trigger huge ship-building booms are rare, and for most officers those brief peace-time commands are all they get. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the relation between "Captain' cabins" and "Captains", your work on the analysis of the tools subcategories is not very relevant, unfortunately. Only one of them is related directly to specific profession, all others are namad after activity, none of them is related to a specific function. Your analysis is not very represenative if you wanted really to analyse types of categorizative relations used at Commons. If we would have more non-personal subcategories of the item "Captains", we can create a parent category like "Captainship" or "Captaincy" for them (similarly as we have "Papacy" over "Popes"). If we have not such a parent category, the whole item of naval captains belongs into the existing category (and the non-personal subcategories - specific for captains - should be separated e.g. with a space before the sort key to be not mixed with persons by name). However, the direct relation between captain's cabin and captain's function is relevant, specific, and undeniable.
If both categories (Sea captain and Ship captains) contain maritime captains only and there is no need to distinguish some different types or levels of this title, I have nothing against merger of them under the name "Ship captains". In the law of my country, the word "kapitán" is oficially used only in the Maritime Navigation Act, not in the "Inland Navigation Act", that's why I'm ready to consider "ship captains" and "sea captains" as synonymes. --ŠJů (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Driving cabs of vehicles[edit]

I moved this category from Category:Cockpits to Category:Driving cabs of vehicles because the word "cockpits" was criticized as inappropriate for some of subcategories. However, the new name is also not ideal because some subcategories contain driving consoles which are not in cabs or the cabs where the driving console is not specific for driving. ŠJů (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The historic evolution of this category caused that it became a top category for all types of driving cabs, driving consoles and driving stands of various types of vehicles (and the subcategories used the word "cocpits" too). However, the word was criticized as inappropriate especially for rolling stock where the term "driving cab" is established (and a question arised which of vehicles have really "cockpits" and how other label can be used for various types of vehicles.

Please discuss the crucial questions:

  1. Should we keep a top category for all types of of driving cabs, driving consoles and driving stands of various types of vehicles? How name is the best for such a category?
  2. Which of its subcategories should keep the word "cockpits" and which of them should be renamed (or split by type of the driving post)? What names should be used for such renamed subcategories?
  3. Should we keep (restore) the category "Cockpits" as a subcategory of the top category? Is there some essential specific similarity of stands which are called "cockpits" toward control stands which are not called so, or this is a language randomness?

Thank you. --ŠJů (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Freedom Square (Budapest)[edit]

Square names in most other countries (France, Italty, Spain, etc) have not been translated. This should be renamed to Szabadság tér or at least Szabadság square‎. Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the name Szabadság Square. Einstein2 (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Franciscan Square (Budapest)[edit]

Square names in most other countries (France, Italty, Spain, etc) have not been translated. This should be renamed to Ferenciek tére or at least Ferenciek square‎. Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the name Ferenciek Square. Einstein2 (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Archduke Joseph Square[edit]

Square names in most other countries (France, Italty, Spain, etc) have not been translated. This should be renamed to József nádor tér or at least József nádor square‎. Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the name József nádor Square. Einstein2 (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Holy Spirit Square (Budapest)[edit]

Square names in most other countries (France, Italty, Spain, etc) have not been translated. This should be renamed to Szentlélek tér or at least Szentlélek square‎. Themightyquill (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the name Szentlélek Square. Einstein2 (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Trinity Square (Budapest)[edit]

Square names in most other countries (France, Italty, Spain, etc) have not been translated. This should be renamed to Szentháromság tér or at least Szentháromság square‎. Themightyquill (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Some square names are translated, some are not. Cf. Category:Red Square and Category:Wenceslas Square. Renaming seems unneccesary to me. Fransvannes (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if those are good counter examples, since they are rather notable squares. Prague's other squares have not been translated... not even the word square. I could see a comparison with Hősök tere/Heroes' Square, but not with the rest of the squares I nominated. My understanding was that proper names of less notable places are generally not translated. Moreover, while I realize Commons doesn't need to follow Wikipedia, even English Wikipedia has not translated en:Ferenciek tere to Category:Franciscan Square (Budapest) (incidentally, that isn't even a proper translation - it should be "Franciscans' Square" or "Square of the Franciscans"), or for that matter, en:Hősök tere to Category:Heroes' Square (Budapest). The only exception is Szabadság tér, but it doesn't appear to have a clear English equivalent, since it's listed as en:Liberty Square (Budapest) on wikipedia and Category:Freedom Square (Budapest) here. To me, it makes sense, for the sake of clarity and consistency, to just use the name on the street signs. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the name Szentháromság Square. If these square categories will be renamed, Heroes' Square should also be renamed to Hősök Square IMO. Einstein2 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I missed Category:Main Square (Budapest), which should definitely be renamed Category:Fő ter or Category:Fő square as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Mauch Chunk, Pennsylvania[edit]

This category duplicates Category:Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. I don't see a need to maintain separate categories for a renamed city. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The community was renamed in the 1920s for those unaware of the history, at which time two communities were combined into Jim Thorpe, things belonging solely to North Mauch Chunk are associatively rather hidden if the category is eliminated. BUT! Mauch Chunk was an Amerindian name that was adopted by Wm. Penns tolerant Quaker settlers. More to the point, there are and will be entries which have Mauch Chunk naming and not apply to modern day Jim Thorpe. History, especially one as storied as Mauch Chunks, however widely forgotten today, deserve a common historical title to group media that apply. // FrankB 18:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe the merger happened in 1953, not the 1920s. The category's front matter description is confusing and subjective. I could see an argument for using this category to depict the pre-1953 borough of Mauch Chunk, but that's confusing for a structure like Central Railroad of New Jersey Station (Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania), which has stood in the same place since 1888. These categories need to be usable by people who don't have a deep understanding of Pennsylvanian history. East Mauch Chunk exists as a separate concept and could be categorized separately, but Jim Thorpe is the lineal descendant of Mauch Chunk. I don't think that images double-categorized in both Jim Thorpe and Mauch Chunk, when one is the sub-category of another, makes sense and it doesn't reflect best practice on commons. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep As it is, Category:Mauch Chunk is a subcategory of Category:Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. This makes perfect sense. Images that deal with the older town of Mauch Chunk (now currently part of Jim Thorpe) can go in the Mauch Chunk category and still be in the umbrella of the Jim Thorpe category. I can see the argument for merging the two categories but I'd perfer to separate the two and put Mauch Chunk underneath Jim Thorpe. Themfromspace (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • However, images are double-categorized in both categories. See for example File:FAB's IMG 4662 Lehigh Coal & Navigation Corp-HQ,Mauch Chunk-Jim Thorpe,PA.JPG. That's contrary to practice on Commons. If Mauch Chunk is a sub-category of Jim Thorpe then those images should only be in Mauch Chunk. However, the images depict modern Jim Thorpe. Mauch Chunk ceased to be a legal entity decades ago. This is a confusing situation and I'm unaware of a similar structure on Commons. Note for example Category:Budapest (the city, past and present) and Category:Pest (Hungary) (historical maps and miscategorized cards from a mass upload). I have no idea what belongs in Mauch Chunk, as opposed to Jim Thorpe. If these are kept it needs to be clear to casual participants. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Historical images that show the town of Mauch Chunk before it was reincorporated as Jim Thorpe should be filed in the Mauch Chunk category. Images that show historic buildings in the old town can go in category: Old Mauch Chunk Historic District which is a subcategory of both of these. Anything else should be filed on a case by case basis with editorial discretion. I know there is some categorization with some of the subcats, but its not that big of a deal. As a navigational aid, it's much easier to keep the categories separate for people pursuing historical research. Trying to apply the generic rules of Commons in this situation is like trying to fit a square block into a round hole. Themfromspace (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Anser anser f. domestica[edit]

I think the correct name is Anser anser domesticus or "Anser anser f. domesticus" Jee 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Although the name is in use in some textbooks, it's actually not a valid scientific taxon at all, and we shouldn't use it; European domesticated geese are derived from both subspecies Anser anser anser and Anser anser rubrirostris, and are a hotch-potch that can't be ascribed to any single subspecies name. More accurate would be "Domesticated forms of Anser anser" or just "Domesticated Anser anser" - or, since Commons uses English language for categories that are not taxa, I'd suggest renaming to Category:Domesticated Greylag Geese. - MPF (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MPF for your opinion. Jee 09:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow[edit]

See User talk:Ralf Roletschek#COM:CAT (german).

I renamed the category to Niederfinow boat lift giving the following reason ([3]):

correct name according to enwiki, "Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow" is only used by dewiki; no exeception should be made here according to COM:CAT

Ralf Roletschek reverted this giving the following reason ([4]):

"Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow" ist ein Eigenname

FDMS (WP: en, de) 17:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep weil:
  1. es ist ein Eigenname
  2. Wikidata legt nicht fest, was ein Eigenname ist
  3. Boote werden nur in Ausnahmefällen geschleust, das Hebewerk ist für Schiffe gebaut
  4. "Schiffsfahrstuhl" ist in der Literatur zwar gebräuchlich, allerdings immer in Anführungsstrichen
  5. wenn ein englischer Redirect existiert, gibt es keinen Grund, ein deutsches Objekt nicht auch deutsch zu bezeichnen.
  6. Der benachbarte Neubau heißt "Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow Nord" und nicht anders, das haben der damalige Bundesverkehrsminister und der brandenburgische Ministerpräsident bei der Grundsteinlegung so festgelegt: "Wir taufen dich..."
Derartige Umbenennungen führen nur dazu, daß niemand mehr was wiederfindet. Und man verliert massiv die Lust, etwas beizutragen, wenn einem so in die Beine gegrätscht wird. Weit über 90% der über 500 Bilder sind von mir und meinem Kumpel. --Ralf Roleček 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Boat heißt/means Schiff [5], boat lift heißt/means Schiffshebewerk [6]. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Soll etwa sowas: Category:Sbratření (Vrchlického sady) auch künstlich englisch gemacht werden? Das ist nicht mein Werk, habe es nur bemerkt, weil da ein Bild von mir drin gelandet ist. Und es ist richtig, daß das tschechische Denkmal tschechisch benannt wird. --Ralf Roleček 20:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Kategorienamen von obigem Typ sollten nur in äußersten Ausnahmefällen verwendet werden, da sie mir zum Beispiel nicht mehr als eine zufällige Zahlenkombination sagen. Da mir völlig unklar ist was der Titel sagen soll kann ich auch nicht entscheiden, ob der Name in diesem Fall geeignet ist oder nicht, das könnte ich nur wenn ich entweder die Sprache sprechen würde oder Interwikilinks vorhanden wären, was beides im Gegensatz zum Niederfinow boat lift nicht der Fall ist. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 20:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Nicht jeder spricht Englisch. Aber Tschechen sprechen Tschechisch, Deutsche sprechen Deutsch und Chinesen Chinesisch. --Ralf Roleček 22:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Mehr Tschechen sprechen Englisch als Commons-User gesamt Tschechisch. Viele Deutsche und Tschechen sprechen besser Englisch als ihre Haupt-Landessprache. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 06:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as Category:Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow because it's a proper name (Eigenname). --Stepro (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not the first one claiming that, so please provide evidence. All I can see is that the german Wikipedia is the only project calling it "Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow" – if there were English websites using "Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow" things would be different. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 18:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Beim Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow handelt es sich um einen Eigennamen, der so auch in amtlichen Flur- und Schifffahrtskarten eingetragen ist. --Mogelzahn (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Notice boards[edit]

Appears to duplicate Category:Bulletin boards. I am not sure if there is some subtle difference I can't see but it appears to be a dialectal difference rather than an actual difference. Suggest merge - not fussed which way Mattinbgn (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:الرسم والاظهار المعماري[edit]

Categories should be in English, especially when they have no specific Arabic content 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

we can simply translate it to "Architectural Drawing and Representation"[edit]

--hasanisawi (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Kingdom Centre (Riyadh)[edit]

All images in the category are an image of a Saudi Arabian building. According to this page, this is considered a copyright violation and all images in the category are copyright and FoP violations and should be discussed here. 20:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Internet applications[edit]

Should this be for application software for use with Internet, or for Web applications (applications whose interface consist of Web pages)? AVRS (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Modern movement in the United States[edit]

Seems to me that for this and its subcategories, "Modern movement architecture'" would be clearer than just "Modern movement". This appears to be the usage in the parent category Category:Modern movement architecture by country. Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I wholeheartedly agree. "Modern movement" could mean many different things without the "architecture" to define it. "'Modernist architecture" would be even better, but I can live with "Modern movement architecture". Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • According to the description of the category, it should be really about modern movement architecture, not about whole modernism in painting, music, literature, industry, society etc. But it has also many subcategories which should be also renamed. --ŠJů (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it would be nice if the usage was consistent across all the country articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
      • ŠJů, exactly. As I said, "this and its subcategories". - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
        • And also the subcategories of the parent category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. This category, and all its subcategories, should be renamed as proposed for the sake of clarity and consistency with its parent category. Farragutful (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moves per everyone else. I would prefer "modernist architecture" like BMK, but we definitely need to get "architecture" into the category name, and all of these are better than the ambiguous "modern architecture". Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra KT8D5 in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Per SJu, unecesarily difficult system.--Juandev (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you please elaborate on how having all pictures of a certain model of tram in one cat is difficult? And what proposed alternative do you have that satisfies the parallel tree structure endorsed by the previous CfD? Liamdavies (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • But to place all the images in there would create COM:OVERCAT, and they would all be removed owing to their belonging to the child 'by number' tree. Liamdavies (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • No they dont, because this category will be deleted.--Juandev (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
My solution is to create a brother/cousin category (titled 'media of'), this can sit besides the 'by registration number' cat tree and does not create overcat. If this cat is deleted and depopulated all of the images will be removed from the parent cat and will only sit in the child cats. In a nut shell: if you want all the images of a certain model of tram operating in Prague to be in a single category, support this tree, if you want all the pictures to be spread across individual categories and NOT be in a SINGLE category, oppose this tree, if you want both, support this tree. Liamdavies (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ŠJů seems to be correct in that the "Media of" categories are duplicates. Really it seems to me that Category:Media of Tatra KT8D5 in Prague should be empty, since Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague doesn't contain any media files, only subcategories. But my question is, if these particular tram categories need "media of" categories, then do thousands of other categories in Commons also require them? I don't think there's anything special about these particular categories. Further, if anybody can create "media of" categories, can I create Category:Media of Electric trams in Prague, and how would it interact with its "media of" subcategories? --ghouston (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The same problem was solved elsewhere by adding a catscan link that could generate a gallery of all images in the subcategories, e.g., Category:Ships_built_at_Bath_Iron_Works. It seems to be broken at the moment, but that's a technical issue that could in principle be fixed. --ghouston (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Better yet, use the "all images" option in the FastCCI gadget (the button that displays "good pictures" by default.) --ghouston (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra RT6N2 in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra RT6N2 in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3 in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3 in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3M in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3M in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3R.P in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3R.P in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3R.PLF in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3R.PLF in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3R.PV in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3R.PV in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3SU in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3SU in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3SUCS in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3SUCS in Prague. ŠJů (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T4 in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T4 in Prague. ŠJů (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T6A5 in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T6A5 in Prague. ŠJů (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Škoda 14T in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Škoda 14T in Prague. ŠJů (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Škoda 15T in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Škoda 15T in Prague. ŠJů (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Trams in Prague by model[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Trams in Prague by model. ŠJů (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pile drilling machines[edit]

Category:Drilling machines currently says: "Piling machines should be in Category:Piling machines, but some piling machines using rotating drilling tools might feature in both categories." That didn't make sense to me, so I created this category, which I thought would be appropriate for the intersection of Category:Piling machines and Category:Drilling machines. I won't move previously existing images into the new category until this discussion is closed. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Board for Production Awards (United States)[edit]

Merge with Category:Army-Navy Production Award ? Djembayz (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the proper name is "Board for Production Awards". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ohio township route shield templates[edit]

This is an overly specific category. This should be upmerged into Category:Township route shield templates since that category only contains this subcategory. –Fredddie 17:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Upmerge, per nom. --AdmrBoltz 02:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:People looking left[edit]

Category:People looking left / right should be considered from the looking person's point of view. If I look left, I will expose my right side to the photographer. All the people in this category do not look left, they look right. (same with Category:People facing right / left)

It's a kidding category, but if it's there it should be correct. Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Usage seems to indicate it is not a "kidding category". Viewpoint is from person viewing, not necessarily the person shown's left/right. A hat note on the cat explaining this would IMO be appropriate, but I don't think organizing according from viewer's perspective is inherently wrong, nor only considering the person depicted's personal left/right would be inherently "correct". Either would be a choice of perspective. The current usage is in line with other media in "left" and "right" parent categories. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Portuguese nobility[edit]

This category should be renamed "Coats of arms of families of Portugal" to be consistent with all other entries in the parent category Coats of arms of families by country. Besides that, the entire contents of the category Heráldica familiar should be moved here and subsequently eliminated. Possibly it is not historically correct to consider "nobles" all the families with coat of arms, but I think in terms of the organization of Commons makes more sense. JotaCartas (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds resonable = Symbol support vote.svg Support. Gunnex (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Power generation, transportation and distribution[edit]

There is no plausible reason to bundle generation, transportation and distribution but leave out for example storage and use. The bundle category should be split up again. Tetris L (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Based on wrong label in OpenMedia. Lumi i Dushit is a cotribuary to the river Gomsiqa. And it should be Dushi, not Dushit as this is a genetive case. --Albinfo (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:University libraries in the United States[edit]

Should this category be renamed to University and college libraries in the United States or should there be another category for College libraries in the United States? Mjrmtg (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. The name isn't hugely significant, since this can easily include all college libraries. The type of institution (or its name) isn't really relevant to the images in the category. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral: It's "en:Category:University and college academic libraries in the United States" on English Wikipedia, and some people would argue that most colleges are not universities (that is, 4-year degree institutions), but all universities are (or are made up of) "colleges". "Category:College libraries in the United States" would be the common term in the United States, but that makes it incongruous with other countries, where some might even interpret "college library" as equivalent to what Americans would call a "high school library". "Category:Academic libraries in the United States" would sound OK, but then that would take it out of Category:University and college buildings in the United States because it would definitely be interpreted as including grade school/high school libraries if it were named that way. (Maybe that should exist as a parent category though.) --Closeapple (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Concretion stones[edit]

merge with Category:Concretion, as its the same concept Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Screenshots of Translate extension[edit]

Should probably be merged upward with Category:Translate extension. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree --Ioannis Protonotarios (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
What about Category:Screenshots of Translate extension-el? --rimshottalk 21:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand in art[edit]

Covered by Category:Art of New Zealand. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this should perhaps be discussed principally.

My definition would be that "Art of New Zealand" means "art created in New Zealand/by New Zealand's artists", whereas "New Zealand in art" would mean "art which has New Zealand for a subject, but could also be created in other places resp. by artists from other countries". And analogue for other countries and regions of the world.Reykholt (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Islands of the Pacific Ocean in art[edit]

Delete since it is not part of a series and the only sub-cat is up for deletion. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:User BG[edit]

Reasons for discussion request: cf. Commons_talk:Babel#Extension:Babel, broken since 2014-01-07, when this category was erroneously created. The category is populated by {{#babel:...|bg-X|...}} instead of Category:User bg. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that deleting this category would fix this problem? --rimshottalk 22:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Dunno, I can only say that {{#babel:User BG-n}} does not more work since it was created. The bug could be elsewhere, and just happened to create the bogus upper case categories. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The first user contained in this category that I checked had a babel box with {{#babel:en-N|fr-1|es-0|BG-0|ANI-0|VG-0‎|PH-1}}. I think BG means Bitmap Graphics in this case, not Bulgarian (compare with VG for Vector Graphics). Might the babel template need to be extended to support this ability too? --rimshottalk 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
On the template side {{Babel|BG-1|tlh-0}} (example) works as always and as it should, i.e., nothing is wrong with {{User BG-1}}, {{User tlh-0}}, etc. On the extension side #babel:tlh-0 always ignored the existing template using its own English text instead of Klingon. The extension got BG-1 always right until January, 6. One day later the bogus category was created, and BG-1&Co. failed. You can see the working templates on {{User/Language2}} and {{User/Abilities}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
As a test, I have deleted the page. It was instantly re-created by User:Babel AutoCreate and the user boxes still didn't work correctly. --rimshottalk 21:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the category appears to be less populated now, as it was in January after this oddity started. Mostly folks like McZusatz, where I guess that they want BG-n for bitmap graphics, not bulgarian. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The same is the case with Category:User AF which is Afrikaans (Category:User af) versus Category:Audio file editors with its subcategories AF-0, AF-1, AF-2, AF-3. There the software puts the Afrikaans template onto the user page, when someone puts these into the babel extension. These categories have to be deleted, but before that, the user pages have to be fixed. --October wind (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Maps by year[edit]

With our current scheme, Category:1923 maps could include both maps created in 1923 (but depicting 1910), and maps created in 2011 (but depicting 1923). Would it be over-categorization to create new sub-categories for every year along the lines of Category:Maps showing 1923 and Category:Maps created in 1923 ? Please note that many of these categories only contain one or two files. Thanks for your input. Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I would support such a split Oxyman (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Files moved from en.wiktionary to Commons requiring review[edit]

English Wiktionary doesn't exactly have a lot of transferred files needing review anyway. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)