Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2007/11

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

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2010 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2012 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2013 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2014 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
Archive November 2007


This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Solar System object comparisons[edit]

Reasons for discussion request: No difference from Category:Astronomical_object_comparisons.

Most files in Category:Astronomical_object_comparisons would be moved to Category:Solar System object comparisons. This image Image:Gliese581cEarthComparison2 fr.png is correctly categorized. --Juiced lemon 09:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, did not spot that one, have moved the rest to the sub-cat --Tony Wills 01:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Closed, everything looks good now. --rimshottalk 18:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Cosmos (flower)[edit]

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

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

Already moved some time ago to Category:Cosmos (plant). 哦,是吗?(висчвын) 17:50, 17 May 2008 (GMT)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Former country subdivisions[edit]

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

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

Moved to Category:Former subdivisions by country, with the former category remaining a redirect. 哦,是吗?(висчвын) 17:55, 17 May 2008 (GMT)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Subcategories of Courthouses in the United States[edit]

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

I disagree with removing county from the name as I see no reason to mix them. If and when such images get uploaded they can have their own category. Cburnett 20:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
They're already being uploaded and there are probably double that many images on the English Wikipedia that could be moved to Commons for the occasional non-English article about a state supreme court (in the case of the Nevada image, it was uploaded here for just that purpose). Having them all in the same category makes sense at this stage because it's rare for Wikimedia to have more than one image of any state supreme court.--Chaser 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about for TX & IA, but that's fine. Assume all IA courthouses have a picture. You're talking 99 counties plus Northern (2) and Southern (3) halves of the 8th circuit. Assume none of the files are named systematically and you want a picture of the appellate court in Davenport. Go. Worst case is you have to click on 104 images to read if it's the right one. In this case the point of categorization has lost all meaning and helpfulness. Assume that the files are named reasonably, you still have to look at 104 file names to find it.
It would be a heck of a lot easier to find what you want if you had a category for each, much so if and when courthouses start getting duplicates. Instead of setting up the categories for future hardship why not solve the problem here and now? Is a few dozen more categories going to break commons or something? Cburnett 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ditto for Texas. Texas has 254 counties. -Nv8200p 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Apart from that, Category:Courthouses in the United States isn't consistently named. I think that all the categories should be renamed to Courthouses of .... --rimshottalk 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. At least remove the "county" restriction from the name, as per the reason stated above. No opinion about "of" versus "in", though. — Loadmaster 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Create a new, higher category of Courthouses of Texas that County Courthouses of Texas would link in to -Nv8200p 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the concept of using the naming convention to standardize the form. A courthouse could theoretically not be a county one, for example the state's Supreme Court, so the word "county" is inappropriate. Adding those few images to state's pool doesn't make it more unruly. Hopefully the uploader would add the county courthouse to the appropriate county category so that it's easier to find. Disagree with the word "of" - it should be renamed to "in" in order to be consistent with parent category. The naming convention of all other buildings that I know of is "Building" in "State", so this convention should be changed for greater consistency. I hate the whole "in" vs "of" confusion - pick one and go with it. "In" makes more sense to me. Royalbroil 04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Different species. County courthouses are in some places owned and run by the county itself, for the dispensation of local justice, which makes them a different kind of facility from a "state" courthouse, and definitely from a federal courthouse (which houses a federal court). Put them under a parent cat, per Nv8200p. BD2412 T 16:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've split the decision a bit. I left the two categories intact and renamed them with a "County courthouses in X" format. Then I made them both a subcategory of a "Courthouses in X" category. I created the parent Category:Courthouses in Texas while the parent Category:Courthouses in Iowa was already present. Wknight94 talk 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Farms by country[edit]

Principal aspects:

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

Special aspect:

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

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

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -
    • this whole Farmhouse thing is a very strange category. It would rather be that one that could be deleted. So IF one would want a rather detailed category like "farmhouses", it would rather be a subcategory of "farms".
    • Secondly: it makes NO sense whatsoever, to move a picture form a category, and put it in a (wrong) subcategory AND a parent category... [[1]] it seems that you're missing the entire categorization concept then and something is seriously wrong. Some strange things have been done: a pic with a farmhouse, a barn, the farm grounds, some animals, the farmer is an archetypal image of a farm. So that's where it belong. See also the remarks of user:Royalbroil [2]
    • Thirdly: a valid category tree like farms should NOT be just emptied and destroyed before putting the deletion template. It will do fine without destroying the work of other people and just tagging it with the request template.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This category should remain for pictures that contain numerous structures commonly found on a farm. For example, any picture at least two of the following: a barn, silo, farmhouse, and/or shed belong in this category. Contributors can add optional categories if appropriate. So if a silo is prominent, the contributor has the option of adding the image to the silo category, farm category, or both. This category should be a child of the agriculture category and a parent of any of the previously mentioned categories. Royalbroil 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that we all can agree that the word farm is a wide definition that covers many aspects, and I can understand that some people find the definition too wide. In that category, there is possibly space for subcategories such as farmhouses, barns, stables, silo's, the typical gates, entrances, fences, bell towers (angelus) and other architectural details ... etc. But the deeper one categorizes, the more problems one is going to have. If one looks to the pictures of Category:Fiefdoms in Ingelmunster, a very old farm, one can see a potential wide collection, none of them being the actual farmhouse as it is hidden as private territory. In fact, for many old farms, especially in Europe, the most characteristic elements of the farms that remain contain still many elements in which the farmhouse itself is only a small aspect. Today, most farms are only containing the "postcard" type of pictures that shows mainly the farmhouse (which is a debatable term as the older ones contain stables too). As we see a general trend towards more encyclopedic and detailed pictures, the farmhouse category will be more and more contested as being too restrictive. Similarly, in Category:Ten Bogaerde, only one of the four pictures pertains to the farmhouse.
((Interposition:)) Ten Bogaerde is the agricultural estate of an abandoned abbey. So I've to admit, that categorization was wrong. But it shows as well, that it would be wrong to rename and move to category:Farmhouses by country to category:Farms by country. It is the same thing with Category:Manors by country – manors have an other social context than farmhouses, which are part of vernacular architecture.--Ulamm 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As my conclusion: farm covers farmhouses and other items related to farms, farmhouses is too restrictive and cannot have logical subcats such as farmgate, barns, etc.... After all, the farm is the top level geographical item which is known by the people, all the rest are components of it. --Foroa 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you would have read my request exactly, you would have read my proposal to use regional subcategories of Category:Farm buildings, which ought to be subordinate to both Category:Agriculture and Category:Buildings. "Farm buildings" excludes many "Agriculture"-items which are included by "Farms". So it is more specific. For many countries Category:Farmhouses is necessary as well, according to the amount of interesting farmhouses, there. ((written after the next))--Ulamm 17:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On Top of the Category:Farms itself, I've written a guideline how to categorize more specificly. Surely this guideline ought to be accomplished.
  • Uploading their photos, many users woun't look at the page of the category.
  • When they see that the category is shown in red, they will look at Category:Farms and read the guideline.--Ulamm 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

No action. 哦,是吗?(висчвын) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (GMT)