Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2009/01

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 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Archive January 2009


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:Hebden North Yorkshire Images[edit]

Please rename to standard, "Hebden, North Yorkshire". --Thomas Gun (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


Renamed, --rimshottalk 05:58, 8 April 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:Zentrum Frankfurt (Oder)[edit]

Has to be renamed to Category:Stadtmitte Frankfurt (Oder) --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


Deleted - empty and bad name --Foroa (talk) 07
09, 28 January 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:Salat[edit]

There are images of salat (islamic prayer), and salat (food). --Smooth_O (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

the proper cat is Category:Salads for the food, salat with _t_ instead of _d_ is german (...?). -- Cherubino (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a short description that may help to avoid that people put a salad in the salat category. Wouter (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me this is now resolved and can be closed. - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Kept, the description should be enough. --rimshottalk 22:37, 10 March 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:Uglovay Arsenalnay Tower[edit]

The correctly spelled name would be Category:Uglovaya Arsenalnaya Tower. --russavia (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I've requested the move. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Moved
--Foroa (talk) 08:09, 7 March 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:History of cinema[edit]

redundant Category:History of Cinema C <-> c. {{Category redirect|History_of_Cinema}} in History of cinema?--Cherubino (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


Merged into Category:History of cinema --Foroa (talk) 06
54, 28 January 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:London Boroughs (in the UK)[edit]

Categories for the London Boroughs of London need to be renamed to their proper full name. Currently, it is too easy to confuse them with London towns that have the same name. This may be why so few images of London have a geographical category. This change would also bring WC into line with en:WP as per en:Category:London_Borough.

For all the London boroughs
Rename:
Category:Barking & Dagenham to Category:London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Category:Bexley to Category:London Borough of Bexley

Category:Barnet to Category:London Borough of Barnet

Category:Brent to Category:London Borough of Brent

Category:Camden to Category:London Borough of Camden

Category:Croydon to Category:London Borough of Croydon

Category:Ealing to Category:London Borough of Ealing

Category:Enfield to Category:London Borough of Enfield

Category:Greenwich to Category:London Borough of Greenwich

Category:Hackney to Category:London Borough of Hackney

Category:Hammersmith & Fulham to Category:London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Category:Haringey to Category:London Borough of Haringey

Category:Harrow to Category:London Borough of Harrow

Category:Hillingdon to Category:London Borough of Hillingdon

Category:Hounslow to Category:London Borough of Hounslow

Category: Islington to Category:London Borough of Islington

Category:Kensington and Chelsea to Category:Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Note: Royal bor.

Category:Kingston upon Thames to Category:Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Note: Royal bor.

Category:Lambeth to Category:London Borough of Lambeth

Category:Lewisham to Category:London Borough of Lewisham

Category:Merton to Category:London Borough of Merton

Category:Newham to Category:London Borough of Newham

Category:Redbridge to Category:London Borough of Redbridge

Category:Richmond to Category:London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

Category:Sutton to Category:London Borough of Sutton

Category:Southwark to Category:London Borough of Southwark

Category:Tower Hamlets to Category:London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Category:Waltham Forest merge into Category:London Borough of Waltham Forest

Category:Wandsworth to Category:London Borough of Wandsworth

--P.g.champion (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support - is there someone who can make these moves quickly and easily, as they are much needed, particularly as town/village/settlement areas are so indistinct in London, whereas boroughs are clear. Although, notably, they'll need to be set so that in Category:London Boroughs they appear in order by name rather than all under L or R! Tafkam (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Strong support - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The de facto standard of Commons locality disambiguation would be Category:Barnet, borough of London and is much easier to find, especially with HotCat. --Foroa (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be fine with me, too. But I think the current naming is not appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 05:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info. The Wikipedia category is now at en:Category:London boroughs. There was discussion at cfd there. -- User:Docu at 11:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done per suggestion Foroa - they are now called Placename, (Royal) borough of London. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixed capitalisation to Placename, Royal Borough or Placename, Borough of London per suggestion on my talkpage. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Smilacina japonica[edit]

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:Railways[edit]

Duplicity. --ŠJů (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion by ŠJů[edit]

There exist established categories Category:Railway lines by country with 30 subcategories and Category:Rail transport companies by country with 23 subcategories here. Besides there exist halfempty category Category:Railways by country with 3 halfempty subcategories. Inasmuch as "railway" means always either "railway line" or "rail transport company", i was presumed with reason, that the existence of this 4 halfempty categories is a banal duplicity and its reparation (in the way a mergence of a content to "railway line" categories) is no any fundamental change of category structure, but that I did adapt it to the established structure only. But Foroa with support of Ingolfson restored this duplicities. I don't understand what the word "railway" does mean unless "railway line" or "rail transport company" or "rail transport in...", which are names of the established categories. I propose this duplicate categorisation branch merge into the more used categories which are named above. --ŠJů (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes:


Thank you ŠJů, for agreeing that we need to have a structure for this, or this back-and-forth will continue even longer. We need to develop a Category:Commons category schemes so that the main structures of the Category:Rail transport get consensus.
First, I will respond to some of ŠJů's complaints, then suggest a structure. ŠJů says that a "railway" is always either a "railway line" or a "rail transport company". And there is exactly the reason. EITHER. In fact, there are THREE different things there, which are often lumped together in general speech, but which Commons should subdivide:
  1. rail transport companies, companies (commercial entities) to transport goods and passengers, like en:Deutsche Bahn which uses many different lines and has wide operations
  2. railways, single organisational entities, like en:Bergische Museumsbahnen with the railway being a company/entity 'specialised' to one line or a just a few (this sometimes overlaps with the above rail transport company structure, but is different in its local specificness and the fact that many are not-for-profit - the example one is a museum entity, which may legally be a company but would only borderline qualify as a "rail transport company")
  3. railway lines, geographical/infrastructure concepts, like en:Black Forest railway (Baden) (operated by a subsidiary of the Deutsche Bahn), which is (or has historically been) operated by different railways and rail transport companies (Note that just for good measure, my example Wikipedia article is called "railway" too, even if it is a railway line (Wikipedia too has not yet standardised all this, and since some of these are official names, they may never be standardised - that does not, however apply to Commons category structure)
While not specifically mentioned by ŠJů, there is also a fourth, related aspect, the categories in Category:Rail transport by function, which I have introduced to distinguish the concept of, for example "military rail transport" from specific military railway lines/railways.
Having shown that the concepts that ŠJů would like to merge together are, in fact separate things, I come to another of his comments - mainly the fact that some of these categories were "half-empty". While it is true that the creation of subcategories with only one or two files or a few subcategories is a bit of a debate point on Commons (some like it, some don't), there are two points here: a) a subcategory with only a few files to start out is then ready to receive images from other users, including those who would not create a new category on their own. There are so many cases when early creation of a correct subcategory would have helped to prevent indiscriminate "I will just chuck it in here" cases. b) there is also the point that early creation of a category structure will guide the correct creation of new categories in parallel and below and prevent more and more inconsistent versions/variants.
The main things I draw from the above is that we need category scheme for rail transport, including such often contentious elements like the above, and including rules for rail/train stations etc... I will start creating one for discussion at User talk:Ingolfson/Category scheme rail transport within the next days, running out of time today. Cheers all. Ingolfson (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's don't change a current category structure which was before changes which you, Ingolfson, have made without a previous discussion and consensus. There is no need to create any new category schema, if the current was suitable in principle. It is enough to include into the prevalent schema few of categories which are deviated from this commonly used principles. If I mentioned that some of new categories are "half-empty", this fact was mentioned as a sign that such a category deviates from a groove.

If any category is defined by a small company which operate one or several railway lines and the railway line(s) have an identical name as the company, such a category should be included concurrently into category of companies and into category of railway lines. It's unreasonably to found any new categories for such railways. Especially when such new categories aren't switched through sufficently with the current categories. If any group of railway lines has a joint name, it groups with railway lines still. Railway lines used formerly to have generally an identical name as the operating company. Groups of the railway lines which have some common attribute (as an operator) are ranked sub a higher category of railway lines too.

If existed the category Category:Railways by function (perceived as Category:Railway lines by function), then is very questionable, whether should exist the Category:Rail transport by function in additon, as it was founded by Ingolfson without a previous discussion. The purpose of such a category was to have been more considered than it was. For example "industrial railways" is a term for special light narrow gauge railways, but "industrial rail transport" is a vague and unused conception which is distinguishable hardly from the freight transport generally. The category Category:Railways by function have to contain only subcategories, which contain only subcategories and images which relate to such a type of railways (railway lines). Category Category:Railways by function pertain at the top of the category Railway lines or of the category Rail transport. There is no occasion to keep the redundant category Railways. --ŠJů (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion by Railwayfan2005[edit]

I suggest we:

If you want a logical structure we need to start with Rail transport in x as the umbrella concept, below this you can get

  • Rail transport infrastructure in x
    • Railway stations in x
    • Railway lines in x
    • Railway bridges in x
    • etc
  • History of rail transport in x
    • Rail accidents in x
    • Defunct railway companies of x
    • Closed/Disused railway lines of x
    • Closed/Disused railway stations of x
    • Railway museums in x
  • Current Railway Operations in x
    • Funiculars in the x
    • Heritage railways in x
    • Miniature railways in x
    • Industrial rail transport in x
    • Light rail in x
    • Railway museums in x
    • Rail transport companies of x
      • Railway logos and shields of x
    • Rapid transit in x
    • Trams in x
  • Rolling stock of x
  • Rail/Train tickets of x
  • Train timetables in x
  • Rail transport maps of x
  • Rail transport by region of x

Railwayfan2005 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad 1-st suggestion: the whole content of the discussed categories should be categorized concurrently by all of the established categorisation criterions: by railway line, by type of depicted object (bridge, train, station...), by region etc. There's no doubt. We accord that the categories which are called "railways" are redundant toward the established categorization system.
Categories Heritage railways and Miniature railways contains subcategories and images classified by railway lines. That is why they pertain to Railway lines category, not directly to Rail transport category. The contained images are classified by type of object in other branches of categorization tree (Miniature locomotives → Locomotives, fitting subcategories of Rail transport infrastructure etc.).
Ad 2-nd suggestion: As i can see, the main change which is contained in your suggestion is, that should be created categories „Current Railway Operations in x“. I don't consider such a idea as efficacious. The subcategories like "miniature railways" or "light rails" or "railway museums" contain also former railways and former museums. It would be difficult and anomalous to detach the current items into separate categories. You omited categories of rail transport companies. Do you try to come out from the existing category structura and to improve it step by step. There is no occasion to hatch any quit new schema. --ŠJů (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Heritage and miniature railways are not railways lines they are railways and therefore belong to Railway operations in x. Parts of them may relate to railway lines but there are very few UK Heritage railways which are the complete original railway line, they are almost always a subset of it. I expect the position to be the same elsewhere.
All "former" railways go in the history category. All museums go in the history category. Rail companies are in "Rail transport companies of x".
There's no point in starting on a journey unless you can see the goal. Step by step is fine but lets know where we are heading.

PS I've added a new top level category "Rail transport by region of x" Railwayfan2005 (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding[edit]

ŠJů, excuse me, but you are missing the point. When I say "let's create a rail transport category scheme", I am:

  1. Not doing something alone. Railwayfan2005 and Foroa both agree that we should have a category scheme to prevent us from having the same discussions over and over again
  2. Not doing anything new. Category schemes have been around for years. There just hasn't been one for rail transport yet. Instead of "just keep it as it is", we will look at what is there and clarify and codify it
  3. Not "making anything up" - the basic category scheme will be 75-95% exactly the same as what is there now
  4. Not riding roughshod over your opinions - where the first draft of the category scheme is either different from what exists now OR is against what you feel is best, you will be able to make your case as to why the category scheme should be different. So will all the others. So will I, when I propose changing something from the current status quo.

The only difference is that after we have agreed (or at least formed a consensus of most participants) on a category scheme, we then have a guideline to work with. People will not be able to move categories (and will not get into unneeded disagreements) unless they have first proposed a change on the category scheme and gotten consensus (i.e. no sudden changes from you, not from someone who hasn't taken part in this discussion - and not from me either!). In short, it is moving all this discussion out in the open, hammering out something, and then documenting it in one central place. Ingolfson (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmmh, regarding the suggestions made above, and after thinking some more - I think I could move a little in ŠJů's direction:
Regarding the railways/railway lines issue - it seems that we all could potentially agree on abolishing "railways" totally, and instead have only "railway lines of X" and, separate and parallel to that, "rail transport companies of x". A heritage railway company that operates only on one railway line could then be placed into both categories. While a railway line that is operated by many operators would only be sorted into "railway lines". While a company that operates many lines and is not specific to one railwayline is only sorted into "Rail transport companies". That should do.
The two above would be the sorting branches for the GEOGRAPHICAL (railway lines) and the ORGANISATIONAL (rail transport companies) aspects. But it still needs a TYPE/FUNCTION part of the category tree (rail transport by function).
Otherwise we have no way of organising, say agricultural or mining rail operations and separating them from other types like passenger rail operations or military rail operations. That is what we need a further branch for. BTW: Contrary to ŠJů's claim, I have not changed that structure in that regard, I have introduced this branch as new. Adding new ways of sorting things is standard Commons procedure, and the Wiki way. As is finding ways of how such a new branch fits into the existing structure, which is part of what we are discussing here, and what I am trying to document in the first draft of the category scheme. Ingolfson (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK I'll buying into the operational types. What high-level functions are there? I've got Passenger Transport, Freight/Goods/Cargo Transport, Infrastructure Maintainence, Pleasure/Heritage/Tourism, Research & Development as starting points. Below these sit the operators and types of operation: International Passenger, Inter City/High Speed, Regional, Local, Commuter; Container, Coal, Ore, Stone, Automotive, Oil/Gas, Chemicals etc; OTP; Miniature, Narrow Gauge, etc; Test Tracks. Into these go the images. All of these need to be qualified by country and have "by country" versions. They'll all need something to indicate they are rail related when there's scope for confusion.
Here's the tree:
  • Railway operations in x by function
    • Passenger train operations in x
      • International passenger train operations in/of x
      • Inter City/High Speed passenger train operations in/of x
      • Regional passenger train operations in/of x
      • Local passenger train operations in/of x
      • Commuter passenger train operations in/of x
    • Freight train operations in x
      • Container train operations in/of x
      • Coal train operations in/of x
      • Ore train operations in/of x
      • Stone train operations in/of x
      • Automotive train operations in/of x
      • (something to go with steel & aluminum ingot/slab/billet trains)
      • Chemical train operations in/of x
        • Oil train operations in/of x
        • Gas train operations in/of x
    • Infrastructure/maintainence of way train operations in x
      • On track plant of x
      • Electrification trains of x
    • Tourist/Heritage railways of x
      • Miniature
      • Narrow Gauge
(Might not need sub dividing)
    • Railway R&D of/in x
      • Rail Test Tracks in x

Railwayfan2005 (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no clear borderline between passenger transport (as a means to get from A to B) and touristic or heritage rail operation. Look at all the narrow gauge railways in the Alps. They are a bit of all. And the trains often also convey freight... I wouldn't be able to categorize my photos according to your scheme! Please don't forget reality besides the theory! Gürbetaler (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gürbetaler - why would you be unable to sort images like this? The examples you gave would simply fit into multiple categories. Surely that is a rather common thing on commons (so many images could/are logically be sorted into three, four, five or more categories - yet the fact that some very similar images are only sorted into the one or two most important categories does not mean the other categories should not exist). In your example, you would simply place the image both into heritage and passenger transport. Or only in heritage transport, if that is clearly the dominant use according to your call. A train bringing some small amount of freight to a mountain village is not a freight train, so likely you would not sort it into "freight rail transport". If it served a still-operating sawmill, you might. The call would be on the individual person sorting (as it is anywhere on Commons).
While I agree with you that we should not make the structure too complex, we should also ALLOW more complex sorting (and provide for it in the category scheme, or the "by function" sorting will have no overarching logic). If the person sorting images / new categories is not willing to do more, he can always just sort it under "rail transport in X-country" as they do now. Borderline cases (as you noted) will always exist. But that shouldn't be an argument to prevent categorisation where people DO know what more specific categories it falls under. Ingolfson (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
First answer (more to come). When I look at the category tree you set up I realize that my "railway thinking" is different. Distinguishing history of rail transport and rail operation is not useful as any picture taken today will be history tomorrow. So you will send a bot every night to exchange operation by history? I know, I exaggerate a bit... I prefer a structure dealing with the contents of a picture and there I see infrastructure, rolling stock, staff as the main aspects. Rolling stock describes single type of vehicles like "steam locomotives of Paraguay" and/or train consists and there we could add aspects to the tree. I will make a proposition soon.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to add an example which I find very odd. What is "heritage rail transport"? That's nonsense. Heritage trains, heritage operation are aspects of rail transport as a whole. And also miniature railways. But nobody will understand what "miniature rail transport" means. A linguistic concept that works for the big rail world can not always be translated to every detail aspect of rail. When we come to specialized enclosed rail systems like rack railway, miniature railway, military railway, mining railway, forestry railway etc., we should stick to this wording. And also heavy rapid transit is a specialized system (for passenger transport). So rail transport is good for the big categories, the big world, but we should keep "railway" for the distinct systems.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at Category:People associated with rail transport. What should homeless people, living on railway ground, have in common with people working for the railway? If you put all that together you can also put the passengers there and as most Swiss people are also rail passengers you can put any Swiss person into the category "associated with rail transport". Sorry, but your approach is far too theoretic. Please try thinking like most Wiki commons users do. Thank you. Gürbetaler (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Gürbetaler, maybe we can distinguish between naming and structure here? I am also confused, seeing that exactly one section down, you seem to argue for the removal of the "railways" branch structure. More to the point, so have multiple others here, and I have changed my mind to agree with them. I do not understand why your sudden shift to retain "railways"? Especially as I am not proposing to abolish railways where it is part of a proper name, such as in Category:Brecon Mountain Railway.
Also, I obviously disagree with your comment on "heritage rail transport" being nonsense. Since we cannot simply call it "heritage", we need to append something that clarifies we are talking about rail. Since "railways" has created severe disambiguation difficulties regarding what it really means - you yourself said it can mean everything and nothing, we others had long discussions whether it means a company, a railway line, or both or nothing - we are now looking for a different way of an appendix to the "heritage" or "military" or whatever rail function we are discussing, which is also internally consistent - and "FUNCTION rail transport" has that option, because it is generic enough. It can include a a photo of a military rail track, as well as a video of a military guard watching on a train, a scan of a military train timetable, as well as a category for a military railway (i.e. one with a proper name). Whereas "Military railways" can be argued to be much more limited/ambiguous.
The category scheme in this instance is to avoid a wild mix of "Military rail transport" here, "Freight rail operations" there, and "Heritage railways" in another case, with everybody doing as he likes because he can argue there is no standard. Ingolfson (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me also add that at the end of the day I wouldn't CARE if instead of a "FUNCTION rail transport" logic we instead agreed on a "FUNCTION railways" logic - no matter what I said above about it being a bit ambiguous. But I am trying hard here to find consensus, and as I noted, I have been told by many people that they would like the "railways" cat branch to go except for proper names. So that is what I am proposing in my category scheme. Can I ask you to consider the issue on those grounds as well? Ingolfson (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Even more so, I have even tried to create a structure where "FUNCTION rail transport" can logically COEXIST with "FUNCTION railways" - but the fact that a user has vehemently opposed THAT approach as well is what started this whole long discussion, and made me realise that however long it takes, we NEED a category structure. Consistency, if for no other reason than to have 10 fights now, so we don't have 100 fights in the next ten years. Ingolfson (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd hope there's sufficient files (it's not just photos on Commons despite what it may seem like) to justify having a category for each operator, from SBB/CFF/FFS through BLS down to DVZO (and beyond). Then the operator can be categorised accordingly. This then makes it easy to consign defunct operators to the history category. The heritage railways debate can wait. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
What I wanted to say is this: Railway as a main category for rail transport is a duplication and not a better wording than rail transport. On the other hand, rail transport is too generic for smaller integrated "rail transport systems". Rail transport of the United States is a very appropriate category. But Miniature rail transport of Germany sounds very odd to me and I think Miniature railways of Germany is more appropriate in this case.
We have to face two problems: The complexity and diversity of rail transport and railways. And on the other hand the fact, that Wikicommons categories must be used not not only by native English speakers but by anybody wanting to categorize media. I think this requires some sort of "simple language". I know, this isn't a simple task to find a good solution but now we are in this dicsussion and should continue it to find a theoretically acceptable and at the same time broadly understandable structure.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
To add a word about distinguishing naming and structure: I think, the two are related. A complex multi-function rail system can't be categorized in the same way as integrated single-function miniature or logging railways.Gürbetaler (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No need for additional main category[edit]

There is no need for a category "Railways" besides the existing categories. Railways stands for a system, so everything is Railways - and nothing. A distinct phisical plant with rolling stock and its operation and a unique company to operate it can be called "a railway". Miniature railways, narrow gauge railways, rack railways or funiculars may operate like this. But the normal "railway" we see today is an "assemblage" of trains on railway lines often belonging to diferent rail transport companies. Thus, "Railways" could replace "Rail transport" as a main category but isn't helpful for the rest. Gürbetaler (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, I by now agree that "railways" can be abolished / should stay abolished as a part of the category tree. "Rail transport" should be used consistently instead, such as in "Rail transport company" or "Rail transport in X-country" (though some subcategories like "Rail lines" and "Rail bridges" would be an exception to the strict rule to avoid cumbersome long constructs like "Rail transport lines" or "Rail transport bridges"). Ingolfson (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Asking for patience[edit]

Hello all - I have been working recently on the draft of the category scheme, and I have almost finished it. However, I still need to tweak it a little more, before "publicising" it on the "rail transport" category itself. As I am quite busy in my offline life, and as I expect quite a bit of comment both from you and others once it "goes live for discussion", I then at that stafe need to be available to give it more attention than I can right now. I hope you can all bear with this a little longer, and promise that I'll be back soon (likely in a week or so) and will then continue with trying to find / helping to forge an agreement between all of us. Ingolfson (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, that such changes are necessary. To date I have seen overmany controversial changes among the done improvements. When some of railway lines ceased to be included and findable in categories of railway lines, this is change to worse. Some few other deviations from established categorization principles was done thereat. Plese let us do no any extensive changes, which prove no an obvious betterment. --ŠJů (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it is very obvious, that we should be able to categorize rail related media after
  • 1) infrastructure = physical plant
  • 2) rolling stock and trains (two separate trees)
  • 3) owner (company)
  • 4) geography (country, region, town)
  • 5) technology (gauge, rack railway, monorail, rubber-tyred, etc.)
  • 6) propulsion (steam, electricity, horses, linear motor, magnetic
  • 7) transported goods/passenger
  • 8) other aspects around rail transport (people, art, modelling etc.)
While we have no problem in the first four groups, number 5, 6 and 7 were a bit underdeveloped and also cause some problems with understandable terms. And then, there are some relations between these groups. Catenary is infrastructure but only needed with electric propulsion. Plattforms are also part of infrastructure but related to passenger transport only.
And one final word: To keep the category tree user-friendly, it should not normally have more than about 5 levels. Gürbetaler (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I see, that many new categories ... by function were created and other proposed to be renamed. Infrastructure and rolling stock do not neccessarily have a single function. I can meet the same flat car in a railway station in a function as "military rail transport" one day and as "transport of timber by rail" the next day. Perhaps we should merge "trains" and what I listed as number 7.Gürbetaler (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 1) infrastructure = physical plant
  • 2) rolling stock, sorted by type, by technology, by propulsion
  • 3) owner (company)
  • 4) geography (country, region, town)
  • 5) technology (gauge, rack railway, monorail, rubber-tyred, etc.)
  • 6) propulsion (steam, electricity, horses, linear motor, magnetic
  • 7) trains, sorted by function (transported goods/passenger)
  • 8) other aspects around rail transport (people, art, modelling etc.)

Categories with bad names[edit]

Going through the existing category tree I found several oddities and ask you for comments:

Gürbetaler (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning "train stations", the official term in the Czech Republic (and maybe it is likewise in major part of Europe) is "železniční stanice" (a railway station etc.). Rarely is used "vlaková stanice" (train station), but is perceived as unusual and unofficial. Majority of countries and languages used such names as "railway station": almost all except US. See interwikis of en:Train station. The birthplace of rail transport is England: I support the English term usance. --ŠJů (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You might be right that many stations started as railway stations, but due to the many types of stations, I think that it evolved to train, tram, bus, post, tank, caddy, fuel, gaz, ... stations. --Foroa (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Category:Rail transport by type is really very ambiguous. "Type" can mean track gauge, type of traction, type of transported goods or passengers, type of drive of train movement and organising of transportation, type of a place (a city, intercity, a mine etc.), type of an owner (state/private railways) etc. It's no reasonable to mix all criteria in one category "by type". By the way: can exist two railway, that one of them belongs to a different type technically, but the rail transport in itself is absolutely equal at both of them. For example some narrow gauge railway can be a integral part of regional standard railway system. "Type of railway" is not equal to "type of rail transport". "Narrow gauge railway" (compared to "standard gauge railways") is a type of railways (and narrow gauge track and narrow gauge rolling stock belong into category "narrow gauge railways"), but "narrow gauge rail transport" is more likely a nonsense or a dubious term. --ŠJů (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This discussion seems to diverge into way too much detail. A category scheme / general discussion need only cover the main, "top" categories. I don't think we should go into detail below that, or we will never get anywhere. Where names are considered wrong (but the location in the structure is considered okay), lets keep the discussion there in the category itself. 125.236.217.145 23:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
o.k., I'll do that.Gürbetaler (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Return to basics - Category:Railways[edit]

Okay, I see one main problem here - there seems little consensus on many matters. Gürbetaler for example goes into a quite different direction with his attempt to recategorise the category than I am with "my" category scheme, while ŠJů seems to prefer no change at all on most things. Add on top that it looks like I will still be unable to give this full attention for many weeks yet (re putting up a Category scheme and then wrangling over it until we have consensus), and we are a bit stuck.

Can we therefore shelve the "big discussion" for a while (or continue it, by all means, not my business to stop discussion, but see below for what we should do HERE...)

Resolve the original intent by ŠJů to discuss Category:Railways - proposal to remove this category branch

Symbol support vote.svg Support As I have noted, I since agree with ŠJů that we should remove "Railways" as a category branch. The limited number of cats in there should be moved to the corresponding "rail transport in X-country" or "rail transport companies" or "railway lines" categories. Ingolfson (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support as explained earlier, above.--Gürbetaler (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support getting rid of Category:Railways. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Closing stale discussion. Category:Railways was redirected in May 2009 by Foroa. Please open a new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 06:27, 13 November 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.

Tsingtau categories to Qingdao[edit]

Reasons for discussion request --J JMesserly (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC) The city of en:Qingdao is sometimes tranliterated as Tsingtau and Tsingtao. According to en WP, Qingdao is the currently the accepted international spelling. Commons is currently using 3 different transliterations and we should use just one. With the one "buildings" exception noted below, the occurance of tsingtau or tsingtao should simply be replaced with Qingdao.

The following are source cats and might need to be excepted for operational reasons. Someone needs to check with the BARCH group folks that are uploading german archive images, these may or may not be impacted by changing these cat names: I have not cfd subste'd these. I also left the cat for Tsingtau Brewery as it is a commercial proper name.-J JMesserly (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical categories should continue to use the name that was used at the time. To change these names to modern name is to attempt to rewrite history and is academically incorrect. E.g. Category:Battle of Tsingtao - this was a battle between Westerners and this is the name all the Western literature has used. To change this to Category: Battle of Qingdao is historically silly. If Wikipedia starts wholesale renaming the past it will become a laughing stock : there never was a German colony of Qingdao. Are you then going to change every article in all the Wikis that refer to it ? Rcbutcher (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance. The Battle of Tsingtao appears to be an accepted fossilized expression, and it appears in en:WP as the title of the article on the subject. Commons does not rename fossilized expressions like French Revolution to Revolution of France even when they violate guidelines because of this status. But is "German military in Tsingtau" a fossilized expression? I agree that using the "name at the time" seems reasonable at first glance, but taking a closer look, things get murky very fast.
  • First off, if "name at the time" is the rule, then since the official name for Pennsylvania between 1681 and 1776 was "the Quaker Province", are you saying we should also rename Category:Pennsylvania in the 1750s to Quaker Province in the 1750s? If not, why not?
  • Next question: "name at the time" according to whom? The one that the germans used at the time (Tsingtau), english speakers (Tsingtao), or the local Chinese? Are you saying we should have cats with names Tsingtao, Tsingtau, Jiāo'ào (the transliteration of the Qing dynasty name)- all for the same place? Why do we choose Tsingtau for one cat, and Tsingtao for another? The current scheme appears ad hoc.
Fortunately, these arcane and complicated details have been discussed at length. The current concensus recorded in Commons:By location category scheme is that an arbiter of placenames other than Commons be chosen, and that arbiter is en:wikipedia. En says it is Qingdao, so that is my proposal for the normalized name. But really, if you have some compelling argument for making them all Tsingtau, or Tsingtao then fine. Cats for the same place should use the same name. I don't care which. -J JMesserly (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point, which is that the current usage is indeed Qingdao, but the historic usage in Western languages was variations of Tsingtao. It is standard practice when writing in a language to use the names as used in that language at the time of the events being covered. Hence English writers use Ypres when writing of World War I even though current usage is Ieper. While the Chinese would not have referred to the German colony as Tsingtao, that is what is has been called in English and German historical texts because it was a German construct. To describe events in the German Colony of Qingdao in 1914 in English would be a nonsense. Likewise it be incorrect to refer to Pennsylvania in 1700 if there was no such entity at that time. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Stamp Kiauchau 1905 40c.jpg
No, I understand the point. I just think that other factors mitigate the practice of lifting techniques that are standard practice from one problem domain and applying them to another. I doubt many will go along with the idea that Category:Pennsylvania in the 1750s should be called to Quaker Province in the 1750s. I agree that this is proper from the perspective a subject domain experts (who actually might state the correct contemporaneous german term for the colony was Kiautschou). However, the category scheme must also serve the needs of lay users. They shouldn't first be required to educate themselves on what the various correct terms are for Pennsylvania simply because they want a picture of an area located in present day Pennsylvania. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Let´s have a look at that problem under the aspect of practical research in the internet. When I created some of the categories concerning Tsingtau, I - being a German-speaking historian - had no idea that the correct modern name of this former German colony is now Quingdao. Doing research in German colonial history I would have looked for Tsingtau ( not Quingdao ). I can´t see any sense in using just one term ( Quingdao ) when that poses an obstacle to research. My suggestion: Change all historic categories using the term "Tsingtau" or "Tsingtao" into subcategories to "History of Quingdao". In this case doing research you have the chance to find whatever you like under all terms in use ( Quingdao, Tsingtao, Tsingtau ) -Xenophon (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, a historian would be aware of the lexographic variation, but certainly kids doing a high school term paper might not. Really, this is a generic problem with search, isn't it? Tarantulas are categorized as Category:Lycosidae, but I don't know biological classification so I didn't know that term. But I can find it using commons search because some images are named tarantula, so I can then traverse the cat tree. Similarly with the variations of Qingdao. The larger question of multilingual support for categories might be solved by sticking the first sentences of each WP article for each language in a navbox with state=collapsed on the categories, then searches for "Jiāo’ào", Chheng-tó-chhī (zh-min-nan WP), 青島, 胶澳,کنگداؤ, 膠澳, چینگدائو,青島市, 칭다오, צ'ינגדאו would all work too. Btw- this is not my idea, and I don't. I think it was User:Duesentrieb that suggested simply taking the article name of the various interwiki'd links. It didn't receive much discussion. My variation is to take the entire first sentence because it usually containst genus terms that a lay user might use in a search expression. Either could be easily done by bot. It might be completely hideable nowdays because searchers like yahoo are now delivering search hits on en:microformats, which is being used on lots of WP and commons pages for stuff like coordinates. It also can be used to declare these synonyms without raising the issue of "spamming" commons. I don't care which way that subject goes, but let's not try to solve it by junking up classifications. A taxonomy is not a thesaurus.-J JMesserly (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
A taxonomy may not be a thesaurus, but it is also not a value in itself, it has to be practical. As a matter of fact, a German colony of Qingdao didn´t exist and nobody would look for such a category; its name was Tsingtau or Kiautschau. A high school kid doing a high school term paper in history on this subject will probably be aware of that fact if his teacher is worth his money ( By the the way, I am teaching history to high school kids ). If you look for the modern city of Qingdao, you´ll find it in the category "Qingdao" with a subcategories hinting at the correct historical terms that are in use by everybody in touch with that subject. I don´t care either about the final decision; as you said, for an experienced researcher in Wikimedia ( but maybe not for high school kids ) it will still be possible to find out about Tsingtau. Regards -Xenophon (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
In the end it is a balance between competing goals. You guys understand the issues and have good intent. I'll go along with whichever way you choose on this. Really though, I think your point about the need for category synonyms is a huge one- I just don't think the cat structure is the right way to do it. I think Duesentrieb's old suggestion on this was a good idea. Wouldn't be hard to run a bot to do it... Do you you think that if the text were hidden in a navbox that the community wouldn't freak out about "spamming" categories with text copied from WP article names? How about if it were totally invisible (I don't know if it would work, but for example hidden in microformat data)? -J JMesserly (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
My only interest in this is to create a user-friendly environment for practical research. A well structured taxonomy is usually one way to reach that goal, tools for using category synonyms may be another, and if it serves the aim to reconcile competing goals - well, that sounds perfect for me. Concerning your last questions - well, I may be good at my issues ( being history and art ) and have a fairly good idea about possibilities to categorize them, but I am absolutely not well informed enough about technical questions like bots, navboxes and the like to discuss it with you. But if you find a way to reconcile the competing goals - go ahead; I would appreciate it if you keep me informed and I will look at the results. Regards -Xenophon (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Confession: I was an art major (got involved in computers to pay my way through college, and was astounded at how much programmers got paid for work that seems trivial compared to making art). Anyway, the buddha saying is that there are many paths to the mountaintop. Unfortunately, we really don't have a lot of good paths to the content, and the rigors of taxonomies are not especially pluralistic when it comes to alternative rationales for organizing information, so the category scheme though perfectible can at best be only one of many paths. If I do anything with the synonym idea, you will hear about it on the village pump.-J JMesserly (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Two Comments:

Jnestorius (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Closing stale discussion. Issue seems resolved. Please open a new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 06:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Small images[edit]

I don't see the purpose of this category. There are many thousands of small images around here. If necessary they could be captured by their dimensions/resolutions or their file size. --Leyo 16:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose should be similary like Category:Blurred images:"The images included on this category could be candidates for deletion if an identical image with an improved quality is provided."--Wst question 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the real benefit of such a category. A small image (small in number of pixels or small in bytes) can be a good image and worthwile for Commons
you have an example?--Wst question 22:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Yes, see File:Yes_check.svg of 3 kb Wouter (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
as there are large immages that are bad. I prefer more a category "bad images" for images that probably never will be used by others because of its bad quality and lacking info and the availability of better images. Blurred images can also be put in that category. Wouter (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this proposal is good. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
"bad images" OK. I agree--Wst question 14:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a remark: The category currently contains several SVG images. --Leyo 23:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have thought about it. When a bad image falls in the Category:Media needing categories there is not a real problem. In fact these images remain hidden for most of the users of Commons. Yes it fills up storage place but I think that the effort in the steps to have it deleted can be better used for categorizing good images, to make nice galleries, etc.
The main problem is when there are bad images in a category or gallery. It makes it more difficult to find good images and it gives the impression that Commons contains many rubbish images. My personal approach would be when I see a bad image in a category, to check if it is used in any Wikipedia article. If not then I will put it in the category “bad images”. If there comes no reaction let’s say within a month, of somebody about putting the image in the “bad images” category, the image can be nominated for deletion automatically. The advantage is that bad images are deleted that are uploaded by users who don’t care about what they uploaded. This saves time of discussion. Wouter (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just found accidentally: User:Gmaxwell/small images --Leyo 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can reduce it a bit Victuallers (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just created the Category:Bad images. Wouter (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I miss a definition of "Small image". I propose: A small image has less then 100 000 pixels (e.g. 400*250). --Frank C. Müller (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I still would delete this unneeded category. We now have the new Category:Bad images. --Leyo 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the aim of this category simply could be to know if a picture is small. Similar to the Category:Black and white photographs, that doesn't mean that the photo is bad in any way and should be deleted, but merely it's Black and white; so the user may decide what to do with the photo. If someone is searching for a small image, he could take advantage of a category Small images! --Frank C. Müller (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See the last sentence of my first posting. --Leyo 18:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Unfortunately I don't know, how to filter the files by there dimensions. Could you give me a hint? --Frank C. Müller (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A couple of points - deleting images here does not actually save any space (which is why we can undelete images quickly too). We don't delete "superseded" images either. Categories contain all revisions of images, if there is lots of poor quality or redundant images to sort through then create a gallery for that subject. There is not really any reason to delete either small images or "bad" images even if they are not used, or have been superseded. If they are so chronically bad (unfocused or extraordinarily bad quality), with no conceivable use apart from an example of bad images and we have an alternative, then yes, ok, nominate them for deletion.
  • Category:Bad images is not very useful because it is so subjective, much better to categorize them in something like Category:Blurred images or Category:Small images which is somewhat more objective and a large number of people can agree what should be there. What is the criteria for putting something into Category:Bad images ? There is practically nothing in that category that I would nominate for deletion on the basis of just poor quality. There are a wealth of categories under Category:Images for cleanup, including Category:Images of low quality. Category:Bad images is too much of a scatter gun collection of images, including some images just wrongly added eg File:M0307543.gif, File:ACC_basical_SVG_tutorial.svg.
  • Without some means of finding images by resolution, we do need some sort of size categories. Something like small, medium, large, extra large. Small are images most useful in icon or thumbnail uses only. Medium is anything large enough to show useful detail, mainly useful on webpages. Large suitable for printing say a 6"x4" photo. Extra large, poster printing size. These could be combined with aspect ratio categories, square, 4:3, widescreen, panorama. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Following Tony's suggestion to categorize these images differently, I converted Category:Bad images to a disambiguation category. Category:Bad images doesn't seem to be part of the scope of this discussion. -- User:Docu at 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread: category can be used to identify small-sized images. -- User:Docu at 10:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:International relations of Germany[edit]

On my work with the pictures of the Bundesarchiv I'm trying to develop a consistent structure of categories for the international relations of Germany. Now Siebrand remarked that categories like "German political relations with Turkey" are "a little odd". He suggested to rename the categories following the schema «"Political relations between COUNTRY1 and COUNTRY2" where 1 and 2 are sorted alphabetically». You should know that nearly all pictures we have to sort are taken in Germany and that some countries have categories of their own for their international relationships and that it would look strange to put so many picture from Bonn into them. At the moment I continue to sort the material in the categories I developed, because it's no problem to rename them later. But still I'm interested in your international feedback. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Siebrand, some people can see a difference between Category:German political relations with France or Category:France political relations with Germany, so the alphabetic order might be the best way, in this case Category:Political relations of France and Germany. Another advantage of this naming convention is, that the subcategories of Category:International relations of XYZ will shown up in the alphabetical order of the foreign countries without any catsort. example:
  • Category:International relations of Gabon and Germany
  • Category:International relations of Georgia and Germany
  • Category:International relations of Germany and Ghana
  • Category:International relations of Germany and Greece
Im very sorry for Zimbabwe ;) Thanks you for the work on this area, --Martin H. (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin and Siebrand!

Thank you for your arguments. I will realize your proposals by using the delinker. I will try to add the category "International relations of <country>" to all countries which are related to this project.

--Mbdortmund (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

done [x] --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing stale thread. I added the alphabetical sorting to the description of Category:International relations by country. -- User:Docu at 10:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Human anatomy schemes[edit]

Should be merged with Category:Anatomical plates and drawings. The two seem interchangeable and Category:Anatomical plates and drawings is more filled out. Doulos Christos (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • respectfully oppose; the topics are clearly separate; plates & drawing deals with the manner of depiction. also; the second category doesn't specify species, which would make it a bad fit. better integrating cat:human anatomy schemes into cat:human anatomy would make more sense, i think. Lx 121 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if the two should remain separate, please add category descriptions to both of them and cross reference the two categories. -- User:Docu at 13:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing stale thread. Category:Human anatomy schemes seems to be used in addition to other categories. As such it seems viable. -- User:Docu at 10:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)