Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2009/11

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.

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 November 2009
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Funicular in Skansen[edit]

Rename Category:Funicular in Skansen to Category:Skansens Bergbana (23 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Funicular in Skansen to Category:Skansen funicular railway (0 entries moved, 0 to go)

"Skansens Bergbana" appears to be the actual name of the funicular railway and is the title used for the English, Swedish and Danish Wikipedia articles (other languages don't have interwiki-linked articles). "Skansen funicular railway" would be the English translation of this name, which would be my second preference . --Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you for your cooperation. Greetings. --Albertyanks (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, go for it. If en-wiki is using that title, this should be uncontroversial; I'd say just take it to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I've now requested it there. I think I've done it right, but the instructions aren't completely clear and I'd appreciate someone else checking I've not broken anything. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread. Rename already completed. -- User:Docu at 13:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Contents of Category:London boroughs[edit]

I closed & moved the cats per the long-open Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01/Category:London Boroughs, following a naming convention Placename, Borough of London per suggestion in the request, which wasnot opposed by anyone & made sense to me. Once done, I received the below conversation on my talkpage, suggesting that there is opposition after all.

See [1]. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Further to the above, is there any consensus for this? London Boroughs are never referred to as "Islington, London borough of" etc (let alone artificial constructions like "Kensington and Chelsea, Royal borough of London") - and in any case, the capitalisation is incorrect ("London Borough" or "Royal Borough" - never "Royal Borough of London" - are always capitalised). iridescent 20:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Deadstar, thank you for closing this Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01/Category:London Boroughs that has been oustanding for such a long time. If there are further problems, a new cfd can be opened. Note that many subcategories in the boroughs have to be changed, for example "buildings in xxx" has to become "buildings in xxx, borough of Londen" with the actual naming (alternatively: "buildings in the Royal Borough of London xxx". --Foroa (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the capitalisation - apologies, I never checked this. I have now renamed them to have a capital B. If there are suggestions as to how to best rename the subcats (see suggestions above) I'd like to hear them & it can be fixed. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Iridescent is absolutely right. They are always written in the form I put in Categories for discussion . It is done like this to avoid confusion, because the ‘entity’ XXXX is not the name of the borough but the ‘whole title is’, which is why it was done like that on WP. XXXX might be a subdivision like the name of a town or ward or something quite different. It becomes more obvious when trying to understand something written by someone that ignores this. I have even seen the BBC deliver news reports from the wrong locations at times; even the wrong hospital on one occasion because they didn’t read the full address properly, so these things matter. Doing otherwise will upset people and cause school teachers to turn purple with rage and shake their fists.
Whilst "Hanringey" is obviously a typo it also further demonstrates the importance of preserving the proper titles of these boroughs so as not to confuse borough with town or district, ward, housing estate etc. So it should be in the form and structure of Category:London Borough of Haringey and [[:Category:Harringay]] district of London and so on but certainly not >xxxx, London Borough of<
For the "buildings in xxx" and other ranges of categories etc., this could be more difficult. One thing they have realised on WP is that by letting anyone create a new category regardless of if they know how the classification of the subject is structured, then you can have a confusing mess which spreads over hundreds and hundreds of sub categories and their subs. The only way to sort this out I think would be to write a script containing a list with the first-part of the name for each of the boroughs. Then have conditionals statements to search the string; say something along the lines ‘if ‘Croydon’ then add ‘Borough of London’. Then have it programmed to go through each category in turn, on the whole database. There is a small problem in that a few of these names are also place names in other parts of the world which were parts of the British Empire but these would be easy to sort out afterwards. Image from those places already turn up in the UK cats so this would not be the greater evil. I will have to think about these other cats further and see how big the problem has become on WC. Hopefully its not as advanced as on WP.--P.g.champion (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
ALmost all "root names" exist in other forms, areas or countries and need disambiguation. --Foroa (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is that if people are looking for images of the Borough of Haringey, they will look for Haringey rather than type "London Borough of Haringey". Also when using HotCat/search, when typing in, say, Category:Croydon, with the current naming convention, it will give me all options, so both the town AND the borough. If the naming convention was changed to "London Borough of Croydon", I would not have this option available to me. So although the naming of the cats is not perhaps the official convention, it is the one more helpful for Commons. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd go with "Southwark, London Borough of" if and only if it were a redirect to "London Borough of Southwark". The major issue to me is that you've unintentionally invented nonexistent names; as P.g.champion says, the name is "London Borough of Southwark", not "Southwark" (which refers to only a small part of the London Borough). Additionally, London is a polycentric city, and the London Boroughs which make up Greater London are none of them part of the City of London itself; plus the boroughs don't follow a consistent naming pattern; as well as the London Boroughs, the boroughs of London also include the City of Westminster and two Royal Boroughs, neither of which are ever listed with "London" in their name. iridescent 16:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I can see what is happening here.
Let us go back to basics for a minute.
The idea of having “categories” is to enable someone working for a picture desk editor to locate images. If they use one of the other picture libraries they may well find the retrieval system is based on tags. This is good for the picture library as they can employ staff with a lower level of education, because tagging pictures is very easy to do. It also makes it appear as if they are giving the prospective customer lots of choice. Of course, what really happens is that tag system throws up lots of false positives. For the buyer this is bad: because time is money and tagging systems wastes plenty of both; it forcing the user to picking their way between the dross. For the people who have to do this all day it is a pain. This is WC’s strong point, as it uses a more powerful category tree system to organise and retrieve images. It provides the shortest route (or number of clicks) between the macro and the micro, to where the right image may be be found. I.e.
Continental location: Europe
Union: United Kingdom
Major conurbation: London
Subdivision: London Borough
Subdivision: District
Putting the name of the admin town in front is to forgo some of the advantages of this category system, whilst adding some of the disadvantages one get with tags. If this mixing of the accepted nomenclatures with ‘key word’ ordering was carried out across WC and the other projects without good cause, it would get more messy than it is now. If one is looking for a London borough, one expects to see ‘London’ first. Whoever originally started the London categories, must have been more familiar with different database systems and grossly unfamiliar with the geography. This is what prompted the the need to correct these London categories in the first place. >XXXX, London Borough of< is still unfortunately, too much of an alien formate and just does not make sense to have WC inventing its own naming conventions, that not only looks awkward and amateurish, but users still will not understand. Lastly, Hotcats still throws up suggestions on WP which has London Borough the right way round, although you might have to prompt it a second time to find the right one. This I think, is hardly a major inconvenience nor a reason to start changing the way categories are formatted. I apologies if I have gone on at length but many years ago (before Microsoft windows was about) I had to use some very large data bases and this brings back those nightmares.--P.g.champion (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  • As others have said, in all but four cases the name of the subdivisions of Greater London is "London Borough of X". The four exceptions are "Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea", "Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames", "City of Westminster" and "City of London" (the latter of which is a sui generis local authority and not a London borough). Iff the form "X, [B|b]orough of London" is helpful for things like hotcat then it is acceptable for them to exist as redirects to the properly named categories. Having the content in categories named like this is incorrect and unprofessional. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Creating all the boroughs with their "short" name that conflict in most of the cases with other locations, was incorrect and unprofessional to start with. We are trying to correct that in the first place. --Foroa (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so to close this now before it sits here for another year: the request will be put in per below (please update any typos etc!), I'll wait for someone else to agree with it here before I put it in. And then redirect from the way they're currently named so they can be used in the search etc. From what I gather, redirects are cheap anyway. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename Category:Bexley, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Bexley (105 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Barnet, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Barnet (170 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Brent, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Brent (101 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Camden, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Camden (174 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Croydon, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Croydon (116 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Ealing, Borough of London (talk) to Category:London Borough of Ealing (151 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Enfield, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Enfield (148 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Greenwich, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Greenwich (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Hackney, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Hackney (156 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Hammersmith and Fulham, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (151 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Haringey, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Haringey (110 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Harrow, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Harrow (85 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Hillingdon, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Hillingdon (97 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Hounslow, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Hounslow (148 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Islington, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Islington (172 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Kensington and Chelsea, Royal Borough to Category:Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (134 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Kingston upon Thames, Royal Borough to Category:Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (155 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Lambeth, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Lambeth (117 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Lewisham, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Lewisham (119 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Merton, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Merton (87 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Newham, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Newham (109 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Redbridge, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Redbridge (108 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Richmond upon Thames, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (115 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Sutton, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Sutton (184 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Southwark, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Southwark (171 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Tower Hamlets, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Tower Hamlets (183 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Waltham Forest, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Waltham Forest (63 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Wandsworth, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Wandsworth (154 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Havering, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Havering (98 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Barking and Dagenham, Borough of London to Category:London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (53 entries moved, 0 to go)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm processing the above request, converting the existing categories to redirect. It will take some time, mediawiki seems to have some problems. To avoid the inconvenience of the previous solution, this is done a week early, but it appears to be the version that gained the most support in the earlier discussion and the one people agree on today. -- User:Docu at 14:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently P.g.champion would like to add something. I will hold the remaining ones for now. -- User:Docu at 14:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I did not know if anyone had checked it through for typos yet? However, if it is OK now, then that is fine. The correct spelling of Harringay caused problems before but that one has come out fine this time. If it hasn't been checked, I can do it tonight or tomorrow. --P.g.champion (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
In case we find a typo, we can easily fix that later. I will finish it then. -- User:Docu at 16:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info it's completed. I also checked if there were any subcategories in the form ", Borough of London" that would need to be renamed, but I didn't find any.
Many subcategories were already consistent with the new format (e.g. Category:Railway stations in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham).
It's possible though that in the previous re-naming, subcategories were omitted (e.g. the ones in Category:Transport in London by borough). I'd be glad if someone could go through these and have them renamed too. -- User:Docu at 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Docu. I have added a new request to address this "Transport in London" cat, just a bit further down the Cfd at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Current_requests#Category:Transport_in_London_by_borough The subcats all look OK.--P.g.champion (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Transport in London by borough[edit]

In line with renaming the London Boroughs categories to the correct format:
Category:Transport in Hackney to Category:Transport in the London Borough of Hackney
Category:Transport in Lambeth to Category:Transport in the London Borough of Lambeth
Category:Transport in Lewisham to Category:Transport in the London Borough of Lewisham
Category:Transport in Merton to Category:Transport in the London Borough of Merton
Category:Transport in Richmond upon Thames to Category:Transport in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
Category:Transport in Tower Hamlets to Category:Transport in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Rename one ‘Royal’ borough:
Category:Transport in Kensington & Chelsea to Category:Transport in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
--P.g.champion (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that there was already extensive discussion on the rename of the parent categories, I think these could have been passed directly to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands -- User:Docu at 12:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Docu, there was widespread support for the parent category names so I'd say these should be non-controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Empty categories deleted. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Smilacina japonica[edit]

Rename Category:Smilacina japonica (talk) to Category:Maianthemum japonicum (5 entries moved, 0 to go)

As mentioned in the last request, Smilacina has for some time been merged into Maianthemum and this category should be renamed Maianthemum japonicum. See LaFrankie, J. V. 1986. Transfer of the species of Smilacina Desf. to Maianthemum Wiggers (Liliaceae). Taxon 35: 584–589. --Choess (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done -- User:Docu at 05:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Japanese culture / Culture of Japan[edit]

We currently have Category:Japanese culture and Category:Culture of Japan. As discussed at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Nov#Japanese culture and tangled categories, the theory is that the former is for what is culturally Japanese (regardless of where in the world it is) and the latter for cultural matters in Japan (regardless of whether they would normally be considered "Japanese" culture). So:

Example Culture of Japan Japanese culture
Noh play in Osaka Yes Yes
Japanese cultural festival in Stockholm No Yes
Symphony orchestra in Tokyo Yes No

In practice, though, as anyone can see from looking at the contents of these categories, they've become hopelessly tangled. There is very little correlation between the intent and what is actually located in which category. Here is my proposal to untangle them:

  1. Merge contents of Category:Japanese culture into Category:Culture of Japan, leaving a category redirect.
  2. Add a new category Category:Japanese culture outside Japan under Category:Culture of Japan
  3. As appropriate, move content into Category:Japanese culture outside Japan, typically in addition to some other subcategory of Category:Culture of Japan
  4. As appropriate, for subcategories of Category:Culture of Japan add "by country" categories (e.g. Category:Karaoke by country)


Example Culture of Japan Japanese culture outside Japan
Noh play in Osaka Yes No
Japanese cultural festival in Stockholm (implied supercategory) Yes
Symphony orchestra in Tokyo Yes No

I'm open to other suggestions (and there are some other ideas at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Nov#Japanese culture and tangled categories) but we should get consensus and disentangle this one way or another. - Jmabel ! talk 05:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Merged. For future reference, the moved files are listed here in case anyone wants to split them out again. Wknight94 talk 12:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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


Judging by supercategories, this was meant for a river in Italy, but judging by contents, in practice it has just been a place for Italian speakers to categorize images that should be under one or another subcategory of Category:Churches. Proposal: move current content to Category:Churches (or more specific subcategories) and rename this Category:Chiese River. --Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As I can't seem to find anything about the river, we could just redirect it to Category:Churches after moving all files to Category:Churches in Italy. -- User:Docu at 07:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
✓OK erm, try en:Chiese for the river? I agree with the proposal. I'll have a quick look at where all these churches are, move them to country-level perhaps. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I mean, the category doesn't include any images of the river. It seems that it was created empty. -- User:Docu at 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah - I see! I also found Category:Chiese (river), which has all the images for this river. Perhaps just deleting this cat is enough. Working on emptying it, but it seems to be a bot that is adding this cat to images more than people - deleting it is vital for this to not happen again. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If they are all of churches, a redirect to Category:Churches would bring them to the right place. I'm hesitant to suggest to redirect it to Category:Churches in Italy ;) -- User:Docu at 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
About one third was already in Category:Churches in Italy or one of its subcategories. I had my bot remove them and re-categorized the remaining ones. I added a redirect, but I'm not too sure about that one .. -- User:Docu at 04:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC), 04:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So the only question remaining on this request is whether Category:Chiese should redirect - I think it should be deleted so as to not confuse as not all churches that were in the cat were in Italy to start with. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think it should redirect. Maybe not necessarily to Category:Churches in Italy, but to Category:Churches. BTW all churches were in Italy. -- User:Docu at 09:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing old thread. Category was redirected. -- User:Docu at 07:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Michigan State University alumni[edit]

I had created Category:Michigan State University alumni, because I did not found the uncomplete categorized Category:Alumni of Michigan State University. What ist the better name? Should be named all Alumni categories by the same format, or are there different generic names or different usually used names for the alumnies, in dependance by wich university they are from? --Diwas (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Closing old thread. Please merge the two and redirect the second category. In Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States they seem to go either way. -- User:Docu at 07:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Wedded couples[edit]

I see that Category:Bridal couples was recently moved to Category:Wedded couples. If there was any discussion, I must have missed it. Up until the point where the wedding ceremony has been performed, the couple is a "bridal couple" or even a "wedding couple", but not a "wedded couple". Since many of these photos will be from before the ceremony, I believe the new name is wrong.

The deletion remark said that "bridal couple" is not idiomatic English. As a native speaker of English, I beg to differ, but would have no problem with "wedding couple" (even though it strikes me as less idiomatic than "bridal couple". FWIW, "bridal couple" gets 688,000 Google hits. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully. Wedded couple is a very odd expression, to me. Thus inappropriate as a category name. Also for the reason given above. In 59 years of speaking English as my first language, I've heard of a married couple, never once of a wedded one. SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I too am a native English speaker, and "Bridal couples" is the phrase that immediately makes most sense to me. "Wedded couple" on the other hand strikes me as very odd phrasing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread. Please make the corresponding requests at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. -- User:Docu at 07:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Etchings of Moses[edit]

This category is incorrectly named. None of the images appear to be etchings; most look like engravings; a few are woodcuts. A better name would be "Prints of Moses". Ecphora (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC) (Transferred from Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/11/Category:Michigan State University alumni--Diwas (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

I am moving the images that are not etchings to their own new categories by type of printing. This one can be left, although it will have no images as yet. Ecphora (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing stale thread that seems to be worked out--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Paris, Texas[edit]

According to en:Paris, Texas#Origins, "it is assumed it was named after its French counterpart". Thus, should this category be subcategory of Category:Paris ? -- User:Docu at 10:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No. In which way would that be a useful categorization? Tons of things are named after other things (especially US cities). Rocket000 (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I come across such subcategories, so I figured I'd better ask. If the question is clear, we could add something about this to Commons:Categories. -- User:Docu at 10:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, that would not be useful. Would we next put Category:Paris Hilton there? BD2412 T 02:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Category:Paris, Texas is useful and properly categorized, as it a city in Texas for which we have in scope media. Being named after something does not make it part of the namesake, so Paris Texas should no more be a subcategory of Category:Paris than New York should be a subcategory of York, nor Louisiana a subcategory of Louis XIV of France. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This is another problem - unsourced anyway. Wknight94 talk 12:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Should not be a sub category. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Law offices[edit]

I propose that "Category:Law offices" be merged into "Category:Law firms". The existence of both categories is, in my view, confusing and unnecessary. An editor added a usage note to "Law offices" stating that images of "Offices (the physical space) of lawyers, barristers, solicitors, and other legal professionals" should be placed in that category, but such images could easily be put into "Law firms" as well.

What is likely to happen is that photographs relating to a particular law firm will be put in a subcategory (say, "Category:Doe & Roe"). Since the images will be a mixture of photographs of the office(s) in which the law firm operates, the firm's logo and the lawyers employed by the firm, it will be necessary to make "Category:Doe & Roe" a subcategory of both "Law firms" and "Law offices". In that case, we might as well just ask editors to put all such subcategories into one main category such as "Law firms". The alternative is to create separate subcategories called "Category:Law offices of Doe & Roe" (for images of Doe & Roe's offices, to be put into "Law offices") and "Category:Doe & Roe" (for other images relating to Doe & Roe, to be put into "Law firms"), which seems rather pointless since there probably won't be a huge number of photographs in each subcategory. Also, "Category:Law offices of Doe & Roe" will presumably have to be a subcategory of "Category:Doe & Roe", which means that it will end up being a sub-subcategory of "Law firms".

If the above proposal is accepted, I think the following subcategories will also require renaming:

— Cheers, JackLee talk 07:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Desiring to deal with fewer categories is not a reason to sacrifice accuracy. Law office is to law firm as factory is to manufacturing company. It clearly makes sense to categorize physical places and companies separately, and the nom has not in any way explained why it's a problem to do so. Even if the only contents of law firm subcategories are images of company logos, lawyers, and offices, we will still also categories those images as such as well as by their association with the law firm.
Perhaps most importantly, the nom's description of the contents of these categories is not accurate. As can clearly be seen from the current contents of the categories (and as is obvious from some knowledge of the legal profession), not all law offices pertain to law firms. Many will be the offices of individual practitioners that can hardly be characterized as firms, and many are historic offices maintained as landmarks. Would you really categorize the images in Category:James Monroe Law office or Category:John W. Woodson law office as a "law firm"?
In fact, we can expect more images of the offices of individual practitioners than we can those of law firms. Law firms will typically operate out of floors in office buildings or skyscrapers to which the public does not have access, and which externally depict nothing of their contents, so there will be few pictures of actual law firm offices. Instead, the law firm offices that the public will be able to take pictures of most frequently will be the proverbial "shingle" hung out—the small offices of solo practitioners. (Full disclosure: I created the category just to fix the pluralization of Category:Law office, which another contributor started. I've also worked at three law firms.) Postdlf (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At first I was just going to comment with some questions, but after looking at some of the images and subcategories, I think keeping seperate categories would be best. I note that there are images such as File:Maison des avocats -1.JPG which are law offices but not law firms, and others like File:LeathesPriorSolicitorsLogoBlue.JPG which are law firms but not law offices. It looks to me like the problem gets even worse with subcategories. I notice we already have some country categories like Category:Law offices in the United States. As categories become more populated the tendancy is to break them down further geographically. But there are many big law firms that have offices in multiple cities, states, and countries. For example a branch office of a law firm based in New York City might be located in South Carolina. If categorized by firm it would go in the New York subcat, and if by office in the South Carolina subcat. Having seperate categories for firms and offices may be a bit messy, but the alternative seems to me even messier. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Mixed — I don't see any reason that "Law firms of the United States" and "Law firms of Northern Ireland" should not be moved; virtually every geography-based category is "___ in ___". However, as noted by others already, it's good to have different categories for the companies and for the buildings themselves. We can easily add a notice to the categories that images of the buildings themselves should go into Offices, while other images should go into Firms. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for the interesting comments. A few observations:
    • If "Category:Law firms" and "Category:Law offices" are retained, it will be necessary to define their scope carefully in usage notes. For the reasons suggested above, I think it is acceptable to use "Law offices" for the physical buildings or offices occupied by lawyers and "Law firms" for law practices.
    • I a little troubled by Postdlf's suggestion the category "Law firms" is unsuitable for sole practitioners. The Commons is used by a worldwide audience, and I believe that to many people law firm includes all law practices, including those run by sole practitioners. I used to work as a lawyer in Singapore and that is how the term is used there. If the term is ambiguous, then perhaps we need to find a term that covers both law firms and sole practitioners – "Category:Law practices"? Or should there be a separate category for sole practitioners?
    • As Infrogmation has pointed out, there are large international law firms that have offices in many cities around the world. I guess that means we need to have categories such as "Category:Law firms in Brasilia" and "Category:Law firms in Singapore" for images of those international offices. However, do we also need to have categories for the head offices of such firms such as "Category:Law firms of Singapore"? In other words, images of the head office of the firm of Doe & Roe which originated in New York would be placed in "Category:Law firms of New York", and images of the firm's offices in Singapore would be placed in "Category:Law firms in Singapore".
— Cheers, JackLee talk 15:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If "firm" doesn't just mean company in British English (which I find surprising), what do you call a company of lawyers practicing law, in contrast to just one lawyer conducting the practice of law? Though maybe as pluralized "law practices" won't be ambiguous on that point? Postdlf (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you – according to the OED, firm can mean "[t]he 'style' or name under which the business of a commercial house is transacted" and "[a] partnership of two or more persons for carrying on a business; a commercial house". However, the fact is that the term law firm is sometimes used (perhaps loosely) to refer to all kinds of law practices, including sole practitioners. Indeed, in Singapore it is not uncommon to find sole practitioners practising under a name such as "Doe & Co" or "Roe & Partners" even though there are no other partners. Perhaps it is best to rename "Category:Law firms" as "Category:Law practices". I don't think it is a good idea to put images of sole practitioners' practices in "Category:Law offices" if we are using that category for images of buildings and offices, as that may be confusing. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Confused on your last sentence: why not? If a sole practitioner's practice has a specific building, isn't that his office as much as it would be if he had a partner? Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't a distinction be made between a sole practitioner's business and his or her place of work, in the same way that some editors are drawing a distinction between "law firms" and "law offices"? — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I say yes on the surface level of your question, but I don't understand your point: how does it matter (for the purpose of categorisation) how many lawyers work in an office? Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I just realised what you meant. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
A solo practitioner's business is, by definition, one lawyer (and maybe some support staff, but I doubt we'd have images of those). So yes, we would categorize a picture of a lawyer differently than we would a picture of the office where that lawyer works. Postdlf (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Just wondering if we have consensus on the following:

— Cheers, JackLee talk 16:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree in part. The "law practices OF ..." and "law practices FROM ..." is probably going to get confusing. Estillbham (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I am suggesting either "law practices of ..." or "law practices from ...", not both. I'm not sure which one is more appropriate. Or are you suggesting that perhaps we do not need such subcategories? I have a feeling that we will. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, we have consensus to retain Category:Law offices, and individual images of offices should be categorized by where they are physically located.
  • As for the rest, that's outside the scope of this CFD. But regardless, I'm not understanding why you want to categorize solo practitioners together with law firms (companies employing multiple lawyers). Why wouldn't images of solo practitioners just be categorized as "lawyers"? Particularly since I thought your intent to change the name "firm" was because you consider it ambiguous as to whether it referred to companies only. I'm not convinced on that (that Singaporean solo practitioners commonly misrepresent themselves as constituting a firm of lawyers rather than one is interesting, but beside the point), and I don't think a change to "practices" adds any clarity or focus. Postdlf (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the usage of law firm to include the law practices of sole practitioners is a Singaporean quirk. I have a feeling that it is accepted throughout the common-law world, even if it is not commonplace in the United States. With the usual caveat that self-references should not be made to Wikipedia, I note that the article "law firm" states: "A law firm is a business entity formed by one or more lawyers to engage in the practice of law. ... Law firms are organized in a variety of ways, depending on the jurisdiction in which the firm practices. Common arrangements include: ... Sole proprietorship, in which the attorney is the law firm and is responsible for all profit, loss and liability ... Law firms range widely in size. The smallest law firms are sole practitioners (lawyers practicing alone), who form the vast majority of lawyers in nearly all countries." [Emphasis added.] I think the implication to be drawn is that to many editors and readers the terms law firm and law practice include sole practitioners, and they would be surprised to find sole practitioners' practices under "Category:Lawyers" and larger practices under the separate category "Category:Law firms". My suggestion for renaming the latter to "Category:Law practices" was to find a term that would embrace both sole practitioners and larger practices. Perhaps the US is the outlier here. If this isn't the right place to discuss this issue, should I start a separate CfD for "Category:Law firms"? — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
      • This CFD obviously can't alter the law firm categories that aren't tagged with CFD notices. And I think it would just be confusing to belatedly expand this CFD to rename those categories as well, so starting a separate one would be best if you really want to do that.
      • But on the merits of that renaming issue, I would oppose it, and I don't expect there to be consensus for it. I haven't seen anyone yet but you argue that "law firms" would also include solo practitioners (or that it should), and I don't see that understanding reflected in practice either, based on the images found in Category:Law firms or its subcategories (nor in the articles in Category:Law firms in the English Wikipedia). And if the point in changing the name to "law practices" would be to expressly invite the inclusion of solo practitioners, I would oppose it. There is no benefit to categorizing lawyers who are solo practitioners with companies of multiple lawyers, which are substantively different. The Law Practice of Joe Schmoe, Esq. is still just Joe Schmoe, even if he does business as a professional corporation. As a solo practitioner, images of his "practice" are just images of him. When Schmoe retires, the "firm" retires with him; it has no independent existence. Schmoe, consequently, should just be categorized as a lawyer, not as a law firm or law practice. But Arnold & Porter, for example, exists independently of any particular lawyer. That firm's namesakes, Arnold and Porter, have both been dead for over 30 years. Yet Arnold & Porter as a firm still exists, and even a complete changeover in its personnel would not cause it to cease to exist. So I see no benefit in changing any of these existing categories; certainly not to loosen their definitions. Postdlf (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment: I guess there may be a fundamental difference in different parts of the world between how the term law firm is understood. Since you are of the view that it is not a good idea to find a neutral term that would cover both law firms and sole practitioners (though, as I have pointed out, a good number of people in the world probably treat them as a group), there would be little point for me to initiate a separate discussion about "Category:Law firms". Let's just ensure that there are clear usage notes at "Category:Law firms" and "Category:Lawyers". — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal[edit]

Following from the above discussion, I believe we have consensus for retaining "Category:Law offices" for the buildings and offices occupied by lawyers.

I tagged "Category:Solicitors' offices in Australia" as part of this discussion. Can we deal with whether it should be renamed as "Category:Law firms in Australia" here, or should I relist it separately? — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the images are of law offices, so Category:Law offices in Australia would be more apt. Postdlf (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Estillbham (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Since there was no action on here for a long time, and no consensus to delete or merge/move, I have removed the original tags on the categories. If there is anything to "officially" close this discussion, please do so. Ingolfson (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Living people[edit]

Reasons for discussion request --Nilfanion (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I just removed {{OverPopCat}} from this category. As I understand it the entire purpose of the category is to monitor RC on pages, so diffusion is self-defeating. Commons is different from Wikipedia - as we don't have biographies - but we can still get libellous comments here. That suggests that all files, categories and galleries relating to living people should be included in some manner. That is clearly not the case at present (Andre Agassi and File:Agassi-Auopen2005.jpg) are examples.

I can think of a few questions here:

  1. Do we even need this category on Commons?
  2. If we do, which of the 3 content namespaces (file, gallery, category) do we need to include?
  3. How should we do this? It might make sense to split out Category:Images of living people for example?

Obviously we should get some sort of consensus before acting, as it is vastly underpopulated compared to the comparable categories on the Wikipedias and will take a lot of time and effort to populate. (Moved from AN at request of Docu)--Nilfanion (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

With reference to your three questions above:
(1). It might be useful, but I think People by alphabet is more important for Commons.
(2). I think it should be limited to categories (possibly galleries, if there is no category named after the individual)
(3). An easy way to maintain it, would be to request EuseBot to sync it with en.wp. This would make it fairly low maintenance.
-- User:Docu at 13:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
As a content category, agree with you, and the by alphabet cat does that role better for the most part. That said the by alphabet doesn't make a distinction between living and dead people so there is a difference. The thing is on en.wp the whole point of this category is as a maintenance category not a content one. I'm not sure if we need it in that role here and that's the big question to my mind. Personally, I'm not sure about its utility here - and it needs work whichever way we go (to clean it up or add a load of stuff to it)--Nilfanion (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. I'm not sure what the workflow is for the corresponding category at the English Wikipedia, but I think in order to make use of it, one would need bots to monitor (a) when content is added to or removed from the category and (b) when content in the category is otherwise changed, with this monitoring resulting in a summary of changes requiring review by trusted human users. Considering we don't have cascading watchlisting, I don't see how the category would otherwise aid in giving living people priority in reviewing edits. Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of the category?
  2. One possibility, as you suggest in (3), is to have separate categories for Category:Gallery pages of living people, Category:Categories of living people and Category:Media files of living people.
  3. One question I'd like to raise is whether we want to include files featuring non-notable living people (such as photos featuring identifiable but unnamed passers-by in a street scene). LX (talk, contribs) 19:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
In response the the first point, the reason for the set up on en.wp is that w:Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living people functions as a watchlist. I believe (but am not sure) that there are IRC bots that monitor that feed. It might be worth coordination with en on this - as it would give us a much larger pool of people to monitor BLP issues (and problems here will show through on WP).
It would probably be worth monitoring every identifiable image like you raised. If you have a picture of an identifiable non-notable person on a street corner and someone changes the caption to say "prostitute", that's a problem. The en.wp BLP policy is inherently about identified people as opposed to identifiable, but due to our different scope perhaps we should monitor anything that is eligible for {{personality rights}} tagging.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Comment for those people who work mainly on Commons, and may not know, the foundation has written about what they expect projects to do with regard to matters that deal with living people, and there's also this on Meta. Just wanted to provide those links. As far as the discussion about the category here, I don't know what we should do, but some action should be taken. It's far too unorganized. Killiondude (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I think for images we should just tag them with {{personality rights}} and patrol the category. Sure, not everything is tagged with this template, but creating other progresses is much more complicated than to use existing ones. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info currently "Living people" has 9691 subcategories with a total of 92,981 images and Personality rights warning includes 24,186 images -- User:Docu at 11:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds about right to me. However, there are only 11,553 pictures included in Category:Living people itself. The other 81,000 images cannot be monitored through RecentChangesLinked and would need including. --Nilfanion (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a very big user of Commons, so bringing in my "outside perspective", what I have to say is that this is a category which is completely useless: There are far too many "living people" for anyone to start searching for media in this category, and for the very reason that this category has such a general scope, I think many people, who like me, frequently use Commons, but do not work much on Commons, would never've imagined that such a category could exist. I see the point about BLP, but the point that this category is so very general, I doubt many people will think of adding it when uploading pictures to common, preferring more narrow categories. I think the same thing for Category:Dead people: As a category for post mortem pictures, it does have a purpose, but as a category for pictures of people who were alive at the time the photo was taken, but who have since died, it is of very little use to someone looking for media. V85 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of this category is as a maintenance category, in that sense its analogous to Category:GFDL. I'd expect no one would ever seriously use it for content purposes (and I agree people won't think to add it). That said, if we decide to make use of it we can use bots to keep it populated.--Nilfanion (talk)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Latuff debate has become an issue again. This image is problematic, so is a page that should be tracked. I'm not sure if personality rights tagging is a good idea with that image actually - but certainly we should make more of an effort to get rights tagging done.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The other day, I cleaned up this category as it was related to the POTD. The only images that didn't readily fit into subcategories were caricatures and carnival images. Probably these should go into another standard subcategory. It does look odd to leave them in the main category.
In general, file description pages of caricatures might need a specialized tag. Briefly explaining what it is, which countries may have a tradition in that field, in which countries it may be prohibited, which liberties may authorize it, etc. -- User:Docu at 05:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: in the meantime the caricatures got moved into a subcategory "in art". -- User:Docu at 06:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete or remove the images and keep the categories/galleries in it. What a useless category. It's impossible to track every image of every living person here (not to mention maintain it - think about it). Bots can help but bots the reason we're in this mess in the first place. No ones maintaining it, no one will (and yes I've seen the bot trying to but actually making it worse, like applying it to things that aren't even people since on the language-specific Wikipedia, the name happens to be a living person). Even if we could track every image of every living person, I seriously doubt anyone's going to use it. The sheer amount of changes wouldn't be much better than trying to have people constantly watch the RC. I don't even think anyone wanted this, categorizing bots just started adding categories like this because they grabbed them from Wikipedia (where it may have a practical use). All this does is create more work. Rocket000 (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess "bots" is Multichill's, isn't it? -- User:Docu at 10:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree about the images, let's remove them from the category. -- User:Docu at 20:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Once the search results in MediaWiki could be limited by categories Category:Living people would become really important for searching. Regarding the maintenance of the categories — I think that only few categories on Commons are really regularly inspected and maintained by someone. --Pabouk (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) --- Closing stale discussion.  Docu  at 00:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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


Reasons for discussion request -- Category:Demonstrations and Category:Protests seem intertwined. There are subcats of each using the other word; and there are cross-references for each to the other. I suggest they all be combined into Category:Demonstrations. We will have to take care of the subcats later. Estillbham (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A "protest" can be a hunger strike by a single person, or scaling a nuclear power station cooling tower by a few Greenpeace activists. Calling these "demonstrations" would seem to be very wrong to me - demonstrations are group/crowd acts. Ingolfson (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please close this discussion. No consensus for merge/move, and no activity in discussion. Ingolfson (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus and inactive discussion. --rimshottalk 16:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Admin reviewed Flickr images[edit]

Misleading name. The files aren't solely reviewed by admins, but by other users as well. I'd propose to rename the category to "Reviewed Flickr images", which is more accurate. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep! --MGA73 (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
How about "Reviewed files from Flickr"? This would match "Category:Files from Flickr" -- User:Docu at 11:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, as long as the term "admin" isn't used. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
"Admin" is in clearly appropriate, however I think the human nature of the reviewer should be stated, either "trusted user" or "human" would work. That's simply to be consistent with the FlickreviewR and Flickr upload bot cats. Also should change "images" to "files".--Nilfanion (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Either Category:Human reviewed files from Flikr or Category:Files from Flickr reviewed by trusted users would seem to fit the bill. They'd also get my support. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
not a huge issue, but fair technical point. i'd support a name change (as long as i don't have to do any of the work ;P). "trusted user" would probably be the best choice of keywords.
but what about putting "flickr" first? using the right word-order makes it much easier to search/find the right category (or etc.) with the extremely limited search/sort capabilities of media-wiki & especially the "fill-in-the-rest" feature of both mediawiki search & hotcat.js. i know naming conventions are a mess, but i've been trying to figure out the best schema, using the tools we have. placing the primary identifier-word foremost is useful, in terms of improved functionality. you can actually find what you're looking for!
(& we already have "Flicker" as the header for a number of other, related cats... )
Lx 121 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
So are you suggesting Category:Flikr images reviewed by trusted users? That would put the primary word first, but it's also not clear that the images that have been reviewed are hosted here but sourced from Flikr rahter than being images hosted on Flikr. I'm can't, off the top of my head, think of a phrasing that removes this ambiguity while retaining the word Flikr first. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
how about Category:Flikr-sourced images reviewed by trusted users? i['m not really in love with the phrasing, but the key concepts would seem to been Flickr-sourced materials, & "reviewed by trusted users"; with the "flickr" as the initial word (for the reasons listed above) Lx 121 (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
That does tick all the boxes, but like you I'm not dead keen on the phrasing. I still can't come up with anything better though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Category:Reviewed files from Flickr sounds good; no need to complicate names. ZooFari 07:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
"Files" and "Images" are fairly redundant on this project. How about the very simple Category:Flickr reviewed?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Except that a lot of Flickr files are reviewed by robot, and this category exists to separate the ones humans have looked at from those only looked at by machine. Category:Flickr files reviewed by humans would work for me. Courcelles (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Category:Flickr images reviewed by trusted users. Trusted Reviewers might be marginally better though. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Category:Flickr images reviewed by trusted users. also. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support for the category name that WhiteWriter and Sreejithk support; I'd prefer Courcelles' solution, but both are better than the current name. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The category includes files uploaded by User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), it would be worth splitting this out into a automatically reviewed category. -- (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Flickr images reviewed by trusted users: King of ♠ 19:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Windmills in Arnhem[edit]

This category is probably a level to deep. I already notice most mills in the openair museum in arnhem are already in the Category:Windmills in Gelderland category. The category don't contain a lot of pictures. So I want to propose to just merge this category with that one. --Akoopal (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree I don't see the problem, the cat fits in perfectly within "buildings in Arnhem", and there are undoubtedly more windmills in Arnhem that have not been properly classified. ("not a lot of pictures" isn't a reason to delete a category anyway). -- Deadstar (msg) 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
NB The windmills in Arnhem that are in the Open Air museum should (according to logic) thus be moved to "Windmills in Arnhem", or (if there are many) have a seperate subsection? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You are working from the 'Arnhem' perspective, I am working from the 'Windmills' perspective. If you divide all the mills over the different categories it makes then harder to find if you don't know the exact town a mill is in. There are 9 windmills in Arnhem ciy from which 8 are in the open airmuseum and there is one in Elden, which is in the municiple. I plan to start making a category for every mill as that gives you consistent naming, so you would end up with about 10 subcategories. Akoopal (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And I think those subcategories would work really well under the "Windmills in Arnhem" category. With one click you can expand the tree to show you all the names of the mills within Arnhem etc. anyway. And I guess if I knew the name of a mill but not where it was, the search would come up with it regardless of in what category it sits. Maybe it would be good to sort all the "Windmills in city" categories to the top of the "Windmills in Gelderland" cat so they are easier to find? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
After spending a bit more time on the windmills category, I think it is a very good idea in fact to keep categories like Category:Windmills in Arnhem and Category:Windmills in Oude IJsselstreek as it neatly tidies the mills away within the main placename category & would suggest to create more of those (like in municipalities as Category:Bronckhorst). However, for the purpose of Category:Windmills in Gelderland it might be an idea to list all mills there seperately (and perhaps, but not necessarily, as well as under their placename cat). -- Deadstar (msg) 16:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I am always a hesitant for solutions where you allow for overcategorisation for a certain case. I am always afraid a purist will pass by and cleanup again so you either keep fighting a battle, or that the solution is not complete, some categories are in both, others are not. From the mill perspective I still prefer one list, but I can see the standpoint from the place categories. Akoopal (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No consensus: Stale discussion King of ♠ 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Royalty of Sweden[edit]

I would like to get a number of categories renamed so that they are more consistent in name format with others in the same subject groups. This desire of mine pertains especially to several of the subcategories listed under those of the kings and queens and princes and princesses of Sweden where the inconsistencies are confusing and disturbing. Is this a hard thing to do? Can I post a proposed list here, or send it to someone (administrator?) by email, of how this would look if we can do it? I need help with this idea... Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC) (Transferred from Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/11/Category:Michigan State University alumni--Diwas (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

Go ahead and post a list here if you can. Or explain what you are looking for somehow. Wknight94 talk 12:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I hope to get to this soon. Y t SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay with this. Here is a suggested list, only for the existing subcategories to "Monarchs of Sweden" to begin with. Category names in italics would be unchanged in this system. Comments are also in italics.

  • Adolph Frederick (Swedish king) – most common English exonyms
  • Albert (Swedish king) – main claim to fame
  • Anwynd James of Sweden (Anund Jakob)
  • Birger (Swedish king)
  • Canute I of Sweden (Knut Eriksson)
  • Canute II of Sweden (Knut Långe)
  • Carl I of Sweden (Karl Sverkersson)
  • Carl II of Sweden (Karl Knutsson) – Charles obsolete English for Swedish royalty since 1973
  • Carl IX of Sweden
  • Carl X Gustav of Sweden
  • Carl XI of Sweden
  • Carl XII of Sweden
  • Carl XIII (Swedish and Norwegian king)
  • Carl XIV John (Swedish and Norwegian king)
  • Carl XV (Swedish and Norwegian king)
  • Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden
  • Christian I (Scandinavian king) - Scandinavian = of Denmark, Norway and Sweden
  • Christian II (Scandinavian king)
  • Christina (Swedish queen regnant)
  • Christopher III (Scandinavian king)
  • Eric (V) the Victorious (Swedish king)
  • Eric (VIII) Goodyear (Swedish legendary king)
  • Eric (IX) of Sweden (Erik den Helige)
  • Eric (X) of Sweden (Erik Knutsson)
  • Eric (XI) of Sweden (Erik Eriksson)
  • Eric (XII) of Sweden (Erik Magnusson)
  • Eric of Pomerania (Scandinavian king)
  • Eric XIV of Sweden
  • Frederick (Swedish king)
  • Gustav I of Sweden
  • Gustav II Adolph of Sweden – most common English exonym
  • Gustav III of Sweden
  • Gustav IV Adolph of Sweden – English exonyms
  • Gustaf V of Sweden – legal spelling since 1900
  • Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden
  • Hacon Red of Sweden (Håkan Röde)
  • Hacon VI (Swedish and Norwegian king)
  • Ingi the Elder of Sweden (Inge Stenkilsson)
  • Ingi the Younger of Sweden (Inge Hallstensson)
  • Ingiburga (Ingeborg Håkansdotter)
  • John (Scandinavian king)
  • John III of Sweden
  • Magnus I of Sweden (Magnus Nilsson)
  • Magnus II of Sweden (Magnus Henriksson)
  • Magnus III of Sweden (Magnus Ladulås)
  • Magnus IV (Swedish and Norwegian king)
  • Margaret (Scandinavian queen regnant)
  • Olaf Scotking of Sweden (Olov Skötkonung)
  • Oscar I (Swedish and Norwegian king)
  • Oscar II (Swedish and Norwegian king)
  • Regents of Sweden
  • Sigmund III (Polish and Swedish king) – English exonym for Polish Zygmunt
  • Sweartgar I of Sweden (Sverker)
  • Ulrica Eleanor (Swedish queen regnant) – English exonyms
  • Waldemar (Swedish king)

SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly not even sure what's going on here, but it's clear that there's no consensus to make any changes. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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


According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word jurist can mean:

  • "One who practises in law; a lawyer".
  • "[A] judge".
  • "One who professes or treats of law; one versed in the science of law; a legal writer".
  • "In the Universities: A student of law, or one who takes a degree in law".

Given the potential for the term to be misunderstood, I propose that "Category:Jurists" be merged into "Category:Legal scholars". It appears that most of the content of "Category:Jurists" relates to legal scholars. In any case, we should not have both "Category:Jurists" and "Category:Legal scholars".

Content relating to lawyers should be placed in "Category:Lawyers" and to judges in "Category:Judges". It should not be put into "Category:Jurists".

If the proposal is accepted, the following subcategories will also require renaming:

— Cheers, JackLee talk 13:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Agreed. In the US, I see "jurist" in headlines and in articles or speeches with a bunch of other "75-cent words." I also suggest that some descriptive statement be placed at the beginning of each of the categories. Estillbham (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm curious. What's a 75-cent word? A term (ab)used by journalists? — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • On the English Wikipedia, we use jurist categories just as a general parent category for all legal professions, grouping together specific subcategories for lawyers, judges, legal scholars and professors, and legal writers. Why shouldn't that be done here as well? It certainly isn't synonymous with just "legal scholar," so if these categories need cleaning up, renaming it in that manner is not the solution. Postdlf (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I guess that's possible. However, it seems a bit unnecessary to have an overarching category called "Category:Jurists" with "Category:Judges", "Category:Lawyers" and "Category:Legal scholars" as subcategories of it, as these three can simply be subcategories of "Category:Law" (which is the case now). I appreciate that "legal scholar" is only one of the possible meanings of jurist. However, at present it seems that most editors seem to be treating the two terms as synonymous, and this is undesirable as there shouldn't be two categories covering the same subject matter. I feel the most appropriate solution is just to delete "Category:Jurists" because of its ambiguity and distribute its contents among "Category:Judges", "Category:Lawyers" and "Category:Legal scholars", as appropriate. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's see some further discussion on whether it's helpful as a grouping category. And I suspect it might be the best term for some historical/ancient figures that are known as codifiers or law-givers (or "legal philosophers"), but who weren't legal scholars or judges per se. Postdlf (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Behalten: Juristen sind alle, die eine grundständige juristische Ausbildung erhalten haben (in Deutschland z.B. mindestens Referendarexamen). Diese Kategorie kann man dann nach Tätigkeitsbereich (Rechtsanwalt, Notar, Staatsanwalt, Wirtschaftjurist, Verwaltungsjurist, Rechtswissenschaftler etc.) untergliedern. --Mogelzahn (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm seeing several proposed outcomes for this discussion:

  1. Merge Category:JuristsCategory:Legal scholars, Category:Judges, Category:Lawyers
  2. Redirect Category:JuristsCategory:Law (or Category:Legal scholars?)
  3. Category:Jurists by countryCategory:Legal scholars by country
  4. Category:Jurists by faithCategory:Legal scholars by faith

Is this a correct reading of the discussion so far? BTW, Mogelzahn above voted keep as is. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't speak German – what was Mogelzahn's reason for voting "keep"? If we set aside Mogelzahn's comment for now, as of November 2009 there appeared to be consensus (though only involving Postdlf and myself) that "Jurists" should be retained only for ancient people recognized as legal philosophers, or codifiers of law or lawgivers. Other people sometimes referred to as "jurists" should be categorized under "Lawyers", "Legal scholars" or "Judges". — Cheers, JackLee talk 21:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Google translate: "Keep: lawyers are those who have received an undergraduate legal education (in Germany, for example, at least state examination). This category can then be broken down by sector of activity (lawyer, notary, attorney, business lawyer, jurist, legal scholar, etc.)." --Mogelzahn
TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm goig to assume "Juristen" means "jurists", not "lawyers" as Google translates it. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
We need input from a German speaker as to the meaning of "jurist" in Germany and perhaps other civil law jurisdictions. Right now, it's not clear to me. Note that, per policy, category names are supposed to be in English, so if the term jurist has a special meaning in some jurisdictions, it may be better to have a specially named category like "Jurists (German lawyers)" for clarity. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
My translation: "Keep: jurists are those who have received an academic degree... But you might want to ask User:Wpopp, who seems to be a translator. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, if the translations of Mogelzahn's comment are accurate, then his vote amounts to proposing that "Jurists" remain as an overarching parent category, with subcategories like "Lawyers", "Legal scholars" and "Judges". I guess I have no strong objection to that (though it still seems rather unnecessary). There should be a usage note in the "Jurists" main category as well as a {{Categorise}} tag, to urge editors to put files into the subcategories as much as possible rather than just to dump them into "Jurists". Also, some rearrangement of subcategories will be required: for instance, "Lawyers from Germany", "Legal scholars from Germany" and "Judges from Germany" will have to be made subcategories of "Jurists from Germany". — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If I may say something, „Juristen“ in German means „Lawyers“ too. „Jurists“ may have a slightly different meaning, this word comes from Latin and refers to either legal scholar or already-trained lawyer. In Czech republic we use mainly „Laweyr“ („právník“ in Czech; because „Law“ = „právo“) and that is everybody, who is trained in law and use it in his career. Like judge, attorney, state prosecutor, notary etc. Old word „Jurist“ („jurista“ in Czech) is not used often, most often in the importance of student of law.
So, there is a problem with two categories: Category:Jurists from the Czech Republic and Category:Lawyers from the Czech Republic. Both of them contains the same, lawyers. --Vlout (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for merging Category:Jurists into other categories. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)