Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2009/12

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

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


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

Category:Medal of Honor, NASA[edit]

I propose that this category be renamed to Category:Congressional Space Medal of Honor. The actual name of this medal is the "Congressional Space Medal of Honor". It is not related to the Medal of Honor, which the current category name implies. --jwillbur 04:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this change, but not for the reason stated above. If you compare the various Medals of Honor, you will find that there IS a family resemblance between the NASA medal and the Army, Navy, and Air Force medals, and the USAIOH was responsible for maintaining this family resemblence. I kept the name that the person who posted the image used to avoid confusion. for anyone's information, here is the NASA Page that discusses this: Congressional Space Medal of Honor. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, much more natural name for the category, regardless of the medal's relation to the Medal of Honor. --rimshottalk 16:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing discussion. Category moved per request. -- User:Docu at 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Zero[edit]

Reasons for discussion request --Kenmayer (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC) This category should be renamed Zero (river). Items about the number zero should be categorized in Category:0 (number).

Uncontroversial moves can be handled by CommonsDelinker. - Jmabel ! talk 01:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Renamed to Category:Zero (river) and changed Category:Zero into a disambiguation category. Wknight94 talk 12:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Airbus A380 maiden flight[edit]

Should this category be included in Category:Airbus A380 or just in Category:F-WWOW (aircraft) (which is already in Category:Airbus A380)?

One could see this as overcategorization, but as Category:F-WWOW (aircraft) (and many other categories) can be seen as subcategories of a non-existent group "Category:Airbus A380 by registration", Category:Airbus A380 maiden flight would just be the subcategory for its maiden flight (more important than its registration). This would allow search by registration and just through the category Category:Airbus A380.

Thus, Category:Airbus A380 maiden flight should be in both Category:F-WWOW (aircraft) and Category:Airbus A380.

Other solutions:

-- -- User:Docu at 12:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the same applies to Category:Boeing 787 maiden flight (with already 4 pictures!). -- User:Docu at 11:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't like both of your propositions. If one's looking for maiden flights, he does so in Category:Maiden flights and he will find this cat. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What do you suggest? -- User:Docu at 13:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to categorize as Category:F-WWOW (aircraft) and Category:Maiden flights, that's all. --MB-one (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing discussion: as Category:F-WWOW (aircraft) is currently a subcategory of Category:Airbus A380 and Category:Airbus A380 maiden flight a subcategory of Category:F-WWOW (aircraft), let's not add Category:Airbus A380 maiden flight to Category:Airbus A380 for now. -- User:Docu at 10:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:José López Portillo[edit]

As far as I can tell from documentation, categories must be in English (without diacritics) --Esteban Zissou (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

<discussion copied from Category talk:José López Portillo>

Rename request (see category description)
It's not necessary to remove the diacritical marks, even en:José López Portillo uses them. -- User:Docu at 04:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that's an article, which is like a gallery in Commons. Articles can be redirected (try, for instance en:Jose Lopez Portillo), but Categories can't, and they should be named in English. For that reason, my guess was that a Category should not be named using diacritical marks, but I would like to hear from someone with more experience with this policy. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Galleries have in Commons have nothing to do with Wikipedia articles. They are just in the same namespace. BTW en:José López Portillo is an English language article not a redirect. If you want, you could create a redirect at Category:Jose Lopez Portillo, just use {{category redirect|José López Portillo}} -- User:Docu at 15:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you are a bit confused on the matter. Check out Help:Category#People ("Some notable people may have so much content depicting them, or names that are so well known, that it may be worth creating a category or gallery using their name, such as Category:Albert Einstein.[...] Use the common English-language spelling and word order for the category or gallery name; it's a pity to force this on all the world's names, but as noted elsewhere, we use English-language categories on Commons to work around a software limitation."). - Esteban Zissou (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
What you highlight means mainly that you should use Hu Jintao as category name and not "胡锦涛" or "Jintao Hu", that's all. The part about "gallery name" shouldn't be in there. (Obviously, you don't have to attempt to translate it to "Joseph Wolfson Smallport" either) -- User:Docu at 20:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

</discussion copied from Category talk:José López Portillo>

You get a point that it is not defined what character sets and diacritical marks are supported on Commons (and on the majority of PCs worldwide). When looking on the en:wikipedia evolutions of the last years, it seems impossible to live without diacritical marks, lest call it an extension of English ;). But are for example the Vietnamese diacritical marks supported ? In this case, it does not seem to be a problem, the problem is more on the side of the definition of the Common rules. --Foroa (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Sure. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I would like to see a rule about diacritics written in the Category naming section of the documentation. As it is, there's a lot of room left for interpretation and that's making a mess in some categories. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Diacritics are fine. Wknight94 talk 18:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Diacritics are fine. But this might call for a redirect from category name with no diacritics. - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing thread: no need to rename. -- User:Docu at 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Wako Department Store[edit]

The capitalization of "Wako Department Store" implies that this is an official name. It is not. Further, the store is only tenuously a department store.

The photographs show what is by a wide margin the biggest and best known store -- if you like ad copy English, the "flagship store" -- of what simply calls itself in English "Wako". The category should thus be renamed something like "Wako store (Ginza)", "Wako (Ginza)", or "Wako (store in Ginza)". (I'm unfamiliar with naming on Commons and don't presume to know what's best.)

See the recent discussion of the name of the English article on the building and/or chain here at en:Wiki. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Whenever the discussion is resolved on en-wiki, it should be uncontroversial to make a Delinker request to bring Commons in line with that. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The article on en: wiki now reads "Wako (retailer)", and mentions that the best known store is called "Ginza Wako". The category could be renamed thus. I will put in the request with Delinker. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Some of categories "by alphabet"[edit]

By default all categories are sorted "by alphabet" i. e. "by name". Generally, categories which are sorted directly by name (without internal structuralization) are named "by name" (Rivers by name, Streets by name...). Only several above-mentioned categories deviate from this standard and should be unified to prevalent standard, which can be seen in case tens of examples:

The suffix "by alphabet" is suitably used in cases of Category:Inscriptions by alphabet and Category:Letters by alphabet only. Single sorting by name shouldn't be confussed with categorization by used alphabet. --ŠJů (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are slightly more categories "by name", the "by alphabet" categories have the most contents, so it is tendentious to talk about a de facto or correct standard. --Foroa (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • ŠJů, thanks for starting this page. This should facilitate discussing the question and avoids that people are tempted to paste the same arguments over numerous talk pages. As the categories now have {{cfd}} notices, I will remove the identical {{move}} tags. -- User:Docu at 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Supplement[edit]

There are most bizarre categories like:

Should we have categories like "Airlines by airline", "Companies by company", "Streets by street" etc.? --ŠJů (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that this redundant naming is problematic and a similar problem as with the current renaming proposal. The "by xxx" is redundant with the name of the topic. See #Fundamental naming problem below. --Foroa (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, with the following obvious correction: Category:People of South Africa by alphabet rename to Category:People of Vietnam by name should be changed to Category:People of South Africa by alphabet rename to Category:People of South Africa by name and vice versa. By name is the prevalent standard and makes more sense. In response to User:Foroa's comment: Category:People of South Africa is a container category to hold all other by something categories for South African people, it should not directly contain any articles. --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Retracting support based on alternative comments by Wknight94 --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment either by name or by alphabet is fine by me as long as the category structure makes sense and we standardize to either one of them. We seem to have 40 by name categories and 24 by alphabet categories. Don't forget to put all the categories in a category like Category:Categories by alphabet. Multichill (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete all and replace with galleries. "Category:X by name" is redundant and defeats the purpose of categorization. Wknight94 talk 12:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    "X by name" is not redondant with "X" when you strt creating "by" categories, but. NJR_ZA already said it. A category for that is need, galleries are not really convenient. ~ bayo or talk 12:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    Galleries can be made to be more convenient - or at least more useful - if someone were willing to put in the time. Wknight94 talk 16:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    We talk about categorization. Various gallerie can be created, but they don't solve the categorization. For example, in case of Prague streets, it is useful to categorized separately by city district and paralelly citywide by name. What can solve some gallery? How do you want insert categories of individual streets into some gallery? --ŠJů (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    But this is not "categorizing". It's not a group. There is already "Category:Prague streets" which covers the group of all Prague streets. So why do you need a "Category:Prague streets by name"? Category:Prague streets by name is just an attempt to make one complete list - so make a list (gallery), not a category. You've made a category with no actual categorization. Wknight94 talk 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    Strongly oppose "replacing with galleries", first, because "by name" categories can be exceptionally large. A gallery of 2,000 images is unusable and unmanageable. And any manageable gallery of 200 can explode over 2,000 in quite a short time. Second, and more important. You suggest that editors, in addition to editing and tagging their pictures and categories, should also tinker with something called gallery? When? We have more than enough troubles with plain categorization ... NVO (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but isn't "people by surname" better than "people by name" which is ambigous? Nillerdk (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment +1 Multichill, standardization is a must. ~ bayo or talk 12:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was always puzzled by the "by alphabet" phrase. --Jarekt (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Based on alternative comments by Wknight94 --Stunteltje (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In Dutch we say: "Op alphabet" in cases where we intent to group things by the sequence of the Dutch alphabet. As far as I know it works in English in the same way. I assume in every language grouping by alphabet means to store things by the sequence of the alphabet. It has nothing to do with the characters. As creator of the Category:Ships by alphabet I needed a fast tool to find out whether or not a ship had her own category on Commons. The category system allows me to change data and group ships fast, a tool that I didn'd find for lists. There I have to sort by hand and that is always a crime, as sorting by hand can be done in different ways. The category system hes a definate, standardised sorting. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Polish language also has similar phrase "alfabetycznie" which means sorted by name. Unfortunately similar phrases do not work in English language, where the most obvious interpretation of "by alphabet" would be sorting by the kind of the alphabet used (Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, etc.) --Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "By alphabet" (in Czech "podle abecedy") means often to arrange things by the sequence of letters in the alphabet. But all other criteria use alphabetical sorting as well. Countries in the "by country" category are sorted by alphabet, types in "by type" category as well. "By alphabet" haven't more predicating meaning than "by name". Both terms are comparable, but "by alphabet" has two different meanings, then it is ambiguous. --ŠJů (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, "by name" makes more sense to me too. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The specific feature of the discussed categories is to categorize all categories made for an individual object/being. So what about e.g. Category:Individual categories for people, Category:Individual categories for ships or Category:Categories for individual people, Category:Categories for individual ships? I think the discussed categories contains no files directly. --Diwas (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An other option could be Category:Primary subcategories for people using their name as category title and sorted alphabetically, Category:Primary subcategories for ships using their name as category title and sorted alphabetically, etc.? An advantage of "by alphabet" is that it's somewhat different from other category titles. Personally, I don't have a preference for one or the other, but having them in a single category make things easier for CatScan and the like. For these, it isn't of much importance if the categories are really sorted by alphabet. -- User:Docu at 05:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, "by name" makes more sense to me, than "by alphabet", more frequent, more "common speaking". Jack ma (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I'll gladly accept "by name" categories. (As long as the names will be sorted alphabetically.) -- Ies (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "by name" and oppose deletion. Deleting Category:People by alphabet makes sence, but other categories, i.e. Category:Newspaper names by alphabet, are useful. -- deerstop. 03:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for standardisation - either way (by name / by alphabet). Ingolfson (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment for those who may be unsure why we need "by alphabet / by name" at all: Commons sorts in a nested multi-level category structure. And we are supposed to ONLY categorise in the most exact subcats. The "by alphabet" categories intentionally circumvent this, by providing a list of ALL subcats at a very high levels, a "flattening out" if you want for when it is needed.
Example: "Hans Ronald Meier", a famous geologist (and later Senator) from Notabilistan, nests in a deep, deep category pit like "18th century geologists from Notabilistan" and "Senator of the 23rd Senate of Notabilistan". By placing him in Category:People by alphabet, there is a shortcut which does not involve hunting through hundreds of potential cats if you do not know / remember what / from where exactly he was.

Fundamental naming problem[edit]

The naming discussions concerns a number of different cases. There are several cases which seem unnecessary subcategories while others, such as Category:Categories by country by alphabet and Category:Categories by year by alphabet have a completely different intention and should be discussed separately.

For the sake of simplicity, lets's first discuss the cases such as Category:Airlines by alphabet, Category:Companies by alphabet, Category:People by alphabet, Category:Saints by alphabet, Category:Lighthouses by name, Category:Rivers of France by name, ...

The intention of such categories is to make a separate list that contains only names of categories, no other meta subcategories and that don't create so called "overcategorisation" problems. Now the Commons basic naming rule for category names is: "Topic (what it should contain) - [by classification/organisation method (year/location type/style/)]". Whenever there is a [by method], we know it is a metacategory that is in general a top category for a number of subcategory trees. As can be seen above in #Supplement, this [by classification] term is very often misunderstood and misused. Moreover, the by name/alphabet pseudo classification (because that is the way all categories are sorted), could create even more abusive "by name" category creation.

Now back to the basics. Most current discussed namings do not respect the standard commons naming structure as they dont really tell what should be in the category: we need only the names in our case. So, I am convinced that the following naming that says more precisely what we really want in the category, would be much more coherent with the Commons naming rules:

--Foroa (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Basically, what I am saying is that for example Category:Ship names is a subset or subcategory (containing only names part) of Category:Ships, not a subcategory system or tree. --Foroa (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This seems to go into a direction Foroa attempted to go earlier, i.e. add things to subcategories simply because of their name,
    sample: make Category:Strossmayer square a subcategory of Category:Josip Juraj Strossmayer [diff.].
    The categories we are discussing here are categories that are ordered alphabetically by name, not grouped by names. In most cases, making groups of things just because they are named in a similar way rarely helps. -- User:Docu at 13:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Should categories like Category:Ship names be populated with photos of ship name labels, scans of lists of ship names and Category:People names be populated with signatures? I think it will be so. --Diwas (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That sounds strange and like confusing things and names of things. What we require and are discussing about are categories for ships, airlines and companies, ordered alphabetically after their names. Names of ships, airlines and companies for instance written on signs are currently not subject of discussion. Categories like Category:Ship names, Category:Airline names and Category:Company names only make sense in rare, exceptionally cases for instance if on photos only a name of a thing (ship, airline, company) is visible, not the thing itself. -- Ies (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I replied to it several times already, but it seems that Foroa disregarded it. We categorize media files related to subjects, not media files related to subject names. Category "Albert Einstein" contains all related to this person, not all related to Einstein's name. We categorize grouped subjects (persons, streets, companies...) by name, we don't categorize names itself. When we use this type of metacategory, it is anologous to other metacategories. Every such metacategory contains usually the postfix "by (the first criterion of categorization)". When the first criterion is name (and not area or type or specialization etc.), it is absolutelly logical, systematical and consistent to use the postfix "by name". --ŠJů (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Please clarify "Category:Ships by alphabet --> Category:Ship names". Does that mean just that, names, i.e. listing HMS Ark Royal (now a disambig) alone instead of four distinct categories? Isn't it contrary to existing practice? NVO (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Have a look how it works out if you just categorise by alphabet/name on these ships. I added categories by alphabet. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal discussion[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The second form is less clear than the first one. And "xxx in yyy by name" is automatically in "xxx in yyy". For exemple: there are: Rivers of France by name, Rivers of France by region, etc... and I personnally prefer "by name" than "by alphabet". To stick more to Foroa's question: what is a category ? It is identified by a name, it is a name. What is the name of Tiber ? It is "Tiber"; you cannot isolate the name from the category. You can sort objects by colour, by size, etc... but also by their names, too. Let's take an example: in Category:Street names in Prague, you don't just put the names, you put categories or photographs that have names (here: streets in Prague). Name is just an attribute which can be used as a key for sorting alphabetically. In this case, Category:Streets in Prague by name shows "Streets in Prague", sorted by name. Jack ma (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Foroa's proposal highlights what I have been saying. The "By Name" vs. "Name" vs. "By Alphabet" problem is caused by general misuse of categories. An overall list of names is just that - a list - not a category. When you try to force a list into a category - because it's convenient or whatever - you run into this naming problem. You have one category - Streets of Prague - that holds all streets of Prague. Then you have a second category - Streets of Prague by name - that holds all streets of Prague. The first is a true category since it has subcategories and groupings. The second is a list. Lists go into articles (or "galleries" here). That's how the Wikipedias do it, and this is why. Wknight94 talk 12:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Actually that makes sense. There is no reason why the top level People from XXX has to contain only subcategories. Files can be in this category as well as subcategories such as Men from XXX or People from XXX by occupation/YYY. We can then simply get rid of the People from XXX by alphabet categories --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am indeed on a similar line as User:Wknight94 except that for pragmatic reasons, and the misunderstood "overcategorisation" problem, force to find some sort of compromise for exeptional cases. --Foroa (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Every category works as (dynamically displayed) "list". Don't confuse categories (automatically sorted and automatically filled lists) with "lists" (as pages with manually inserted links). Let's don't use the word "list" in reference to categorization. Many users can prefer to search something sometimes by alphabetical order independently on more detailed thematic segmentation. For example, it is useful to categorize streets of some city by city district, but simultaneously, it is very useful to enable to search them alphabetically citywide (somebody can search some street independently on belonging to a district). "By name" categories are metacategories and they have just similar purpose as "by country" metacategories. When the main category contains many heterogeneous subcategories, it is needed to create homogenous subcategories. The category "Streets in Prague" contains not only subcategories of individual streets, but can contain also subcategories of streets by type, streets by district, street furniture and equipment, street net maps etc. As soon as we create the first metacategory, we have to create the "by name" metacategory at the same time, if we want to retain the possibility to search subjects by name directly without overcategorization. If some individual street categorie is included in "Streets in Prague by district", it cannot be kept in the main category "Streets in Prague". For the sorting by name as the first criterion we need to create the paralel metacategory. --ŠJů (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The key to your statement that bothers me is the word "sorting". Categories were not intended for sorting. They were intended for grouping. If your interest is sorting, the best solution is a sortable table. See m:Help:Sorting. In fact, you could have multiple columns (instead of just name) and sort by all of them on one page. Also, you link to metacategories but {{MetaCat}} has a link, Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION - but "name" is not in the section it links to. Categorizing "by name" is technically possible, and it does happen to sort by name, but it is the wrong tool for the job. Wknight94 talk 11:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
    The purpose of categories is neither grouping in itself nor sorting in itself, but efficient searching of media files. This purpose requires to group files by various relevant criteria as well as to sort the content of every category. Usefulness and desirableness of "by name" ("by alphabet") metacategories is sufficiently evident from the established practice (there exist more than 60 such metacategories currently). Sortable tables or text lists are intended for sorting of names or data, not for sorted grouping and searching of media files. The metacategories should enable to search media files by different criteria: metacategories "by name" ("by alphabet") should enable to search media files by the name of the subject as the first criterion. Why do you make an effort to disallow to search Prague streets by name or to search companies by name? --ŠJů (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
For me the discussion goes in the right direction. What I need is a fast tool to find the category of a ship. As former professional standardiser I am aware of the fact that sorting by hand results in many different lists, for that reason I prefer to use the category system with standardised sorting. But if there is another automated way, for me no problem to use it. Unfortunately it is a hell of of a job to change from one system to another, so initially it has to be done by a bot. If we decide to go that way. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Wknight94/Streets of Prague is the beginning of a sortable list of streets, as requested. More columns could be added - maybe direction or termini or whatever - all sortable. And yes, a bot could be put together to keep it up to date. Wknight94 talk 18:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
And here you see immediately the problem illustrated. No location where you can drop a new name and where the sorting is done automatically. You have to do it by hand in a table !!! Possible, but not user frienly. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
To Wknight94: Yes, every category can be replaced with such table, theoretically. But I am convinced that categories have many advantages and shouldn't be abolished and replaced by lists (and that categories "by name" have exactly similar purpose and usefulness as other metacategories "by ..."). Various galleries can be created but is unreasonable and unsystematic to stand them for categories. If you consider categories "by name" as redundant, your table is redundant just like it. You solved nothing and your proposal deviate from principles of Commons. Manually maked lists of category links isn't advisable method for Commons, in contrast to metacategories. --ŠJů (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Wknight94: Will you be able to manage the Prague list continuously, at least weekly? If yes, perhaps we should delete "Streets in Prague", and then see how it works out. You do realize that tabular charades take time and there's not enough volunteers, don't you? NVO (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The more I think on it, the more I see that we ask our users to enter redundant information that is already present. We all know that in bigger databases, redundant information is evel. In some categories, especially the wierd rivers by region/department ones, some rivers need more than 6 categories, so little chance that those are correctly maintained. The lists we are talking about can be easily extracted by bots, could be refreshed even daily, but at least you are sure to have correct and coherent information. I think that Commons contributors can do more constructive tasks than adding non-necessary categories in an attempt to hide for the over-categorisation problem. --Foroa (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what you try to tell. Parallel categorization by various useful criteria isn't overcategorization. On the other hand, metacategories are very good tool to avoid overcategorization. If many small rivers are categorized by region/department, few major rivers shouldn't be missing in such categories. Also it is helpful to enable search rivers and streets etc. directly by name: many users can search some French river or some Prague street by name without knowing regions or districts. Maintainance of this functionality isn't a overcategorization. Btw, "overlisting" and "overboting" isn't fewer problematical than "overcategorization". --ŠJů (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
But where do you draw the line? All of the categories in Category:Streets in Prague by name - why can't they all go in a new category, Category:Streets in the Czech Republic by name? And also Category:Streets by name? And Category:Roads by name? Etc., etc.? Sounds like we need some method of flattening whatever category tree someone wants to flatten. Maybe a new tool (if it doesn't already exist). Wknight94 talk 02:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course, it is necessary to consider reasonably what levels are useful to create "by name" categories. But clearly such cases exist that such metacategories are needed and advantageous. For example, "streets in (city) by name" can have reason that street name is unique within the frame of one city. "Ships by name" can have purpose in the world-over level because many ships can sail worldwide, etc. --ŠJů (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
And next will be "ships by name by type", "sailing ships by type by name", "Sailing yachts by class by name", "Sailing ships by rig by name", ... and before you know it, you have to restart it allover again because of overcategorisation. We have to think on simple but polyvalent long term solutions. --Foroa (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
As we can see, implementation of metacategories is a long term and systematic solution to apply more categorization criteria concurrently. Most "simple solution" would be to abolish all categories and all galleries etc. But "be simple" isn't the sole purpose of Commons. The primary purpose is "be functional". Many of categories "by name" ("by alphabet") are useful. In some cases they forms the basic metacategory (e. g. in Prague only minority of streets in categorized in "streets by districts", but all street categories are categorized "by name") in other cases "by name" categories have an additional "bypass" function. However, in both types they can be useful. We can discuss usefulness in individual cases, but it would be headless to refuse "by name" categories generally. --ŠJů (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Foroa wrote (18:32, 5 December 2009) about wasting time by entering redundant information by user. This is a big problem and it will growing if commons will growing. Examples: Category:Johann Sebastian Bach (2*composer, 2*person), Category:Johann Sebastian Bach on stamps (3*person, 3*stamps, 2*composer+1*musician, 3*Germany) or Category:Condoleezza Rice (2*politician, 1*from Alabama+1*from the United States, 3*African American, 2*person) there are some redundant categorization inputs now, though there is no excessively categorizing (not by gender, not by city,). Several times the user entered the same data about the persons homeland, ethnik group and/or the state the persons is working for, the occupation and the information that the person is a person, and more. Better way is to enter data only one time and generate several permanent (or temporary) categories (or lists) automatically by using the interactiv created datasets. --Diwas (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. Major problem here is data redundancy and coherency. It is for example next to impossible to check for even simple cases if the rivers in France is are all the right categories. I guess that no one can tell the percentage of completeion of all the towns in the UK, Germany or France. The deeper categories go, and the more we have "parallel" categories, the more problematic this becomes. We might maybe better explore first the database query facilities and catscan potential in stead of continuously adding "parallel" categories. --Foroa (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread. Please make the necessary rename requests at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. -- User:Docu at 10:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is reopenend on Category talk:Rivers of Italy by name and later on Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2010/02/Category:Rivers_by_country_by_name --Foroa (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Regions of Spain[edit]

This is an effort to revive and broaden the stale thread Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/09/Category:Regions of Catalonia.

"Regions" is vague. It might often refer, for example, to an autonomous community such as Andalusia or Navarre, or a mancomunidad (a bottom-up association of municipalities). Everything (or virtually everything) under this category is a comarca and, indeed, the Spanish-language heading on the page is "Comarcas de España". (A comarca is comparable to a "shire"; unfortunately, it can't be translated as "county" because parts of Spain have a history of counties in the narrow sense: ruled by a count.)

Many (perhaps most) of the autonomous regions formally recognize comarcas. In others, the designation is more informal. Andalusia's new 2007 Statute of Autonomy allows for the beginning of formal recognition there. The term is, to the best of my knowledge, used throughout the country (although in Catalonia and - I think - in Asturias it is pluralized comarques rather than comarcas). I think we should do one of the following:

1) this should be renamed as Category:Comarcas of Spain or

2) we can keep this name at the level of the country, but for the autonomous communities that formally recognize comarcas, the categories specific to those communities should use "comarcas / comarques" as appropriate.

--Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1) seems plausible to me - in fact, with "region" there always will be confusion:
  1. the term shoud't be applied to administrative levels, but to other areas (cf. w:region: In general, a region is a medium-scale area of land or water, smaller than the whole areas of interest (which could be, for example, the world, a nation, a river basin, mountain range, and so on), and larger than a specific site. - see there for more)
  2. in fact, in some languages/countries, the word is used for administration, in the meaning of unit - compare Category:Regions of Italy, Category:Regions of France (both admin toplevel, NUTS-2), see w:region#Administrative regions for all
thus, the should all be moved to the local language term instead of english: Category:Regiones of Italy, Category:Régions of France, not to mix up different things, the more, if the word is vague even within administration of Spain W!B: (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
As I stated in Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/09/Category:Regions of Catalonia, the matter is quite complex and we have four official languages in Spain. So such changes can only be made if there are clear definitions of the three or four types of regions in Spain AND there is a clear and active support of at the very least one Spanish administrator. --Foroa (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I will point out again that at the moment the category page says "Español: Comarcas de España", so it shouldn't be used for (for example) mancomunidades. And I certainly agree that we need to accommodate the multi-language issue in terms of category names (and further in terms of remarks at the top of the category pages); as far as category names, is there any autonomous community where it is unclear what would be the appropriate language? I would assume Gallego in Galicia, Catalan/Valencian (same language) in Catalonia & Valencia, Basque in the Basque Country and Navarre, Castilian/Spanish (same language, at least for the relevant vocabulary, with apologies to the Andalusians etc.) elsewhere. Maybe Asturian in Asturias? - Jmabel ! talk 06:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree to rename it "Comarcas of Spain" (if this category should only contain comarcas), as to rename "Regions of Catalonia" back to "Comarcas of Catalonia" "Comarca" is something well defined (in whole Spain), and "Region" is vague. The actual Category:Regions of Catalonia contains the "comarcas" and should be renamed as well (also Category:Regions of Girona which is a subset, to Category:Comarcas of Girona). Jack ma (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing thread. Please rename "Regions" to "Comarcas" if they hold only such subcategories. Create a new Comarcas categories where needed to hold such subcategories. -- User:Docu at 10:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Only if managed by a Spanish administrator that knows the regional and language subtilities of Spain. --Foroa (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume subtilities is subtleties, not subtitles. I'm not sure the Spanish admins have been a lot better on that than some of the rest of us.

Let us continue the discussion of exactly what to do at Category talk:Regions of Spain, since it seems we have at least a loose consensus and this is theoretically a closed discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Cider from Asturies[edit]

As stated by COM:CAT#Category_names, all category names should be in English. Asturies is not the English name, is Asturias. In fact the main category of these ones is Category:Asturias (and the same happened with Category:España - Category:Spain) so I propose to move the following categories:

  1. Category:Cider from AsturiesCategory:Cider from Asturias
  2. Category:Geography of AsturiesCategory:Geography of Asturias
  3. Category:Food from AsturiesCategory:Food from Asturias
  4. Category:Mass media in AsturiesCategory:Mass media in Asturias
  5. Category:Museums in AsturiesCategory:Museums in Asturias
  6. Category:Sports in AsturiesCategory:Sports in Asturias
  7. Category:Politics of AsturiesCategory:Politics of Asturias
  8. Category:Mountains of AsturiesCategory:Mountains of Asturias
  9. Category:Reservoirs in AsturiesCategory:Reservoirs in Asturias
  10. Category:Journalists from AsturiesCategory:Journalists from Asturias
  11. Category:City councils of AsturiesCategory:City councils of Asturias
  12. Category:Newspapers of AsturiesCategory:Newspapers of Asturias
  13. Category:Jurassic Museum of AsturiesCategory:Jurassic Museum of Asturias
  14. Category:Mining museum of AsturiesCategory:Mining museums of Asturias
  15. Category:Sportspeople from AsturiesCategory:Sportspeople from Asturias
  16. Category:Politicians of AsturiesCategory:Politicians of Asturias
  17. Category:Picos d'Europa in AsturiesCategory:Picos de Europa in Asturias (per en:Picos de Europa & Category:Picos de Europa)
  18. Category:Landscapes of AsturiesCategory:Landscapes of Asturias
  19. Category:Mining in AsturiesCategory:Mining in Asturias
  20. Category:Mines of AsturiesCategory:Mines of Asturias
  21. Category:Racecar drivers from AsturiesCategory:Racecar drivers from Asturias
  22. Category:Monarchs of AsturiesCategory:Monarchs of Asturias
  23. Category:Pelayo I of AsturiesCategory:Pelayo I of Asturias

— Dferg (disputatio) 15:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reluctantly agree. We should use Asturias because it is normal in English. Slightly unfortunate, because it is the Castilian rather than the Asturian form of the word, and some asturianos are unhappy to see that form used, but normal English usage has to win out. - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: I've corrected the second entry in the list (it was previously proposing to rename "Geography of Asturies" to a duplicate "Cider from Asturias". Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Asturias is widely used even in Asturias itself. It is necessary to point out that asturian languaje is not official although it is widely protected, except in some municipalities. Asturias is the form most used, most known and official.AdelosRM ! talk

Closing discussion. Please make the corresponding requests at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands or User talk:Category-bot. -- User:Docu at 11:53, 19 March 2010 (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:Propaganda cartoons[edit]

Hopelessly political. See Category talk:Propaganda cartoons. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Later note. As of January 7, 2010 (see my comment farther down) I suggested renaming this category rather than deleting it. I put up a {{move}} tag on the category page March 10, 2010 (see another comment of mine farther down). --Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Subjective categorization. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as the inclusion criteria is so vague that it boils down to "a carton I don't like". We should also have stricter inclusion criteria for the parent category to avoid the content from just being moved up. // Liftarn (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A very important category. If there is disagreement than it should be discussed. This is like throwing the water with the baby. Kooritza (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Very clear criteria spelled out at Category talk:Propaganda cartoons#Criteria for inclusion. According to Liftarn and Pieter Kuiper (PK-L) there should be no Category:Propaganda either, as the criteria for inclusion into Category:Propaganda cartoonst is the same as Category:Propaganda, except that the file must be a cartoon or caricature, and not a poster, photo, text, or audiovisual media. This, to me, is a clear case of "I don't like this category, even though I have no valid reason, so I will nominate it for deletion." on the part of PK-L. The onus should be on PK-L to show why this is less clear than Category:Propaganda and why that is considered acceptable and this not. Furthermore, the onus is on PK-L to explain why this nomination should not be considered a form of disruptive editing, especially as Liftarn was the one who submitted this idea on my talk page. -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe trying to classify anything other than obvious government propaganda is too subjective. History decides these things. I put a move tag on Category:Propaganda. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The discussion here Category_talk:Propaganda_cartoons#Criteria_for_inclusion is very revealing, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Political or propaganda cartoons are important genre of drawing, this kind of cartoons have educational value. --Beroesz (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • We already have Category:Political cartoons. So why do we need this category? Are we going to put all racist and bigoted cartoons in Category:Propaganda cartoons? All cartoons for going to war? Category:Propaganda is for obvious government propaganda. It isn't really propaganda unless the government does it. Only a government has the additional ability to effectively block most or nearly all disagreeing opinions. Or overwhelm all other media by increasing the volume of the government media. And by the self-censorship of private media, especially during times of war, or buildup to war. That is what really turns government media, press, and graphics into propaganda. Are we going to put in all the private-media cartoons that used words like "gook" during the Vietnam War. What about cartoons using "towelhead" and "raghead" during the Gulf War, Iraq War, and Afghanistan War. What about the many hate-filled cartoons on major web sites such as Free Republic, Fox News, etc.. What about cartoons using code-word racism? What about cartoons used as tools in these types of efforts: en:Spin (public relations), en:Media manipulation, en:Framing (social sciences), en:Fear mongering, code word racism, en:Smear campaign, en:Attack ad, en:Managing the news, en:Gatekeeping (communication), en:Bandwagon effect, en:Disinformation, en:Flag-waving, en:Scapegoating. It all comes down to strong differences of opinion. Propaganda is when the government backs up one of those opinions, and intimidates differing opinions. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Let's than make sure (by using inclusion criteria and enforcing them) that only actual government propaganda gets included in the category. Otherwise it will just be a trash heap of cartoons someone objects to. // Liftarn (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Let us wait until the discussion is closed; I do not believe that there is any consensus just yet to change the focus of Category:Propaganda to governmental only. I agree that this category should follow whatever Category:Propaganda is, as this is just a proper subset containing cartoons. -- Avi (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol move vote.svg Rename. Otherwise it's way too subjective. The history books tell me this is propaganda, but it doesn't say that anyone's political opinion you disagree with is propaganda. The classification of being cartoons is useful though so I don't support deletion. Rocket000 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Move discussion started. I put up a {{move}} tag at Category:Propaganda cartoons, and linked to this discussion. It seems that the rough consensus here is to rename this category rather than to delete it. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed, already renamed, no reason to delete redirect. Kameraad Pjotr 18:42, 27 April 2010 (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:Images from the German Federal Archive, location Zwickau[edit]

I think this kind of source category is not wanted. Otherwise the automatic categorization wouldn't have been discontinued. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Italic text

For a start, i'm not quite sure if this is the right category anyway. But user:Roland zh added it about a year ago into one of my articles on german WP ({http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl-Marx-Werk&action=historysubmit&diff=53963043&oldid=53605548]) and i thought about it. There are tons of pics from the german Bundesarchiv available, but most o'them are not correctly categorised, as i found out at my various searches for pics related to coal mining in Zwickau district (my hometown). Maybe category:Mining in Zwickau would be more precise, at least for my purposes. But that would left my fellow countrymen out in the open, who are looking for pics from the past, related to Zwickau, but not to mining. So after all this category makes perfectly sense (imho). greets, --Markscheider (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
For that purpose you should create Category:Karl-Marx-Werk and add the pictures where applicable. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Some of the images categorized should be categorized to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Zwickau, then we can (again) delete this temporary subcategory. --Martin H. (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
And how should someone then find images, which are related to the Zwickau region and are old _and_ are in the public domain? Afaik there exists no cross over search routine; i.e. if a single image is categorized as Category:Zwickau Category:Mining Category:Bundesarchiv you can find it in each of those categories, but not combined. Or do i miss a point here? --Markscheider (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a sub category Category:Images from the German Federal Archive/Zwickau? --Markscheider (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Frage ist: Warum? Ich habe die Bilder jetzt in Category:Karl-Marx-Werk Zwickau and Category:Steinkohlenwerk Martin Hoop geteilt, in erstgenannter können sich falsche Bilder befinden die evt. einem anderen Betrieb zuzuordnen sind. Die Commons-Links in Wikipedia habe ich entsprechend angepasst, es gibt keinen Grund warum de:Karl-Marx-Werk Zwickau auf eine spezielle Bundesarchiv-Kategorie verlinkt war. --Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, ich habe mich Argumenten noch nie verschlossen. Das Problem mit der mangelnden Suchbarkeit sehe ich aber nach wie vor.--Markscheider (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Für den Nutzer von Commons halten wir die Content-Kategorien unter Category:Zwickau vor. Wenn du Wartungsarbeiten machen möchstest kannst du Tools Verwenden: Catscan Schnittmenge Zwickau/BArch - wobei viele Zwickau Bilder nicht richtig sortiert sind, daher gehe zu Category:Images from the German Federal Archive und suche dort nach KM-Stadt bzw. Zwickau und sortiere sie in eine passende Unterkategorie von Category:Zwickau. --Martin H. (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Empty category, per nom. --Martin H. (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2010 (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:Preserved LNER Class A4 steam locomotives[edit]

no longer in use content sorted by locomotive Category:Preserved LNER Class A4 steam locomotives

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Empty category, can be speedied. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Rocket000 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Metro stations by city[edit]

As I noted in Category talk:Metro stations by city with three exceptions it only lists stations in cities where the official name for the local mass rapid transit system is "metro". It would be useful to have a category that enabled access to all the stations, by city, without regard to whether the official name was "metro", "subway", "U-bahn", "underground", or something else.

If this is the category where all the stations are to be listed, by city, I think the name of category is inappropriate.

A complicating factor in choosing a new name is that what are considered subways in one city might only be considered trams in another. The Rochester Subway, for example, was grade separated, but only used standard streetcar rolling stock. I suggest the decision should be based on whether the stops could meaningfully be considered "stations", and aren't just trumped up kiosks.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think that categorising Underground, U-bahn, etc stations together with stations on systems called "Metro" would provide more useful categorisation. I'm not convinced though that Category:Metro stations by city is an inappropriate name for the category as "metro" is the generic term for these systems, at least in British English. Category:Mass rapid transit stations by city would also include (imho) things like bus rapid transit systems but that is not the intent of the current category. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

there is a Category:Rapid transit stations by country, so potentially Category:Rapid transit stations by city could be an alternative? 94.220.245.245 13:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So, if we created a Category:Rapid transit stations by city then Category:Metro stations by city would be redundant subset of the new category -- agreed? Geo Swan (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


Sounds good and reasonable. Proposal accepted. :) --Jcornelius (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Association football players by team[edit]

This category groups all association football players in the world by team. Wouldn't categorising these teams by country first, then the teams themselves, be more sensible, as I started to do here? thanks for your input. --Missionary (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me too, unless you can't remember which is the country of the team you're looking for. Anyway, it is a step that had to be done sooner or later, because the list in the mother category is getting bigger. --Arinsau (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. I agree categorising teams by country and then players by team is far more useful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't see any problems with sorting by country first. While this category is discussed should the subcategories be standardised to "Players of CLUBNAME"? Now I think most categories are named like that, but there are some exceptions that use "CLUBNAME footballers", "CLUBNAME players" and other kinds of names. /Ö 15:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This should be (mostly) addressed by now. TFCforever (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. I agree with the proposal to sort by countries, but looking at the Brazilian example, we should probably sort the players of the national teams by a star (*) so they don't get mixed alphabetically with the clubs. TFCforever (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is now consensus, and I have moved all the categories in question into "by country" ones styled like Missionary's original "Brazil" category. TFCforever (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The categories have been moved. --rimshottalk 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed[edit]

The word "item" isn't perfectly accurate here in my opinion. In the English language Wikipedia that also uses this term, it's appropriate to use it, because it's either the permission for an article or a file. Here on Commons, we don't receive "permissions" for an article, so it's only used for files. The category name should also reflect that in my opinion, so Symbol move vote.svg Move to Category:Files with OTRS permission confirmed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep using the current name for the following reasons:
    • This category does not only contain files, it also contains 29 subcategories and 311 pages. Admittedly, some of those pages are templates which could use includeonly tags and template documentation pages which could use nocat parameters to avoid such categorization.
    • This category is named identically to w:Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed for consistency, and the latter would need to be changed to refer to the new name.
      • Changing the latter would involve changes to over 1,571 pages on English Wikipedia, which could negatively impact the job queue.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Such a move would involve changes to over 84,000 pages, which could negatively impact the job queue.
    • Some of the pages that would have to be changed are protected.
    • The following categories, which are normally empty except for pages needing attention, should be incorporated into this discussion, for the same reasons:
    • There could conceivably be non-file text in any namespace outside the "File" namespace that is only allowed here by virtue of permission evidenced in an OTRS ticket, and "item" is a better description of that text than "file".
    • There are also some pages, like Commons:Ancient Chinese characters/Richard Sears Agreement and Commons:Batch uploading/MK Media Productions, which list or thumbnail a set of files that collectively are only allowed here by virtue of permission evidenced in a single OTRS ticket, there are probably some similar gallery pages, and "item" is a better description of each of those pages than "file".
  • Also, in my defense, I chose the word "items" as a superset of "images" in mid-2007 before the word "files" was chosen to replace it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds like w:busywork to me... Stifle (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • So Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Just sounds like splitting hairs. The use of the phrase "isn't perfectly accurate" about sums it up. 99.9% accurate is good enough for me, unless that .1% rears it's head in some ugly way. --J.smith (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
On a side note, having the category names consistent across en:wiki/commons is nice as well. --J.smith (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The categories and templates that are within the category only contain files, but no articles, so it wouldn't be a bad thing to change this.
  • Commons doesn't need to use the same names as en.wikipedia.
  • It's changing some templates, which has been done several times before without any problems.

--The Evil IP address (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy your retirement. I wish you luck with your future endeavors.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done. No consensus for changing it, many arguments for keeping it. --rimshottalk 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Air tanker, Category:Waterbomber and Category:Firefighting aircraft[edit]

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

There are several categories that I think should be reorganized. We currently have Category:Air tanker, Category:Waterbomber and Category:Firefighting aircraft. Up here in Canada we manufactured the Canadair 215 and Canadair 415 -- the only aircraft purpose-built and designed to serve as waterbombers, from scratch. Disclaimer: I started Category:Waterbomber. About a year ago another contributor moved all the images from Category:Waterbomber to Category:Air tanker. I thought then, and continue to think that this was a mistake. "Air tanker" is ambiguous -- it could refer to tanker aircraft. With regard to whether Category:Firefighting aircraft is a better alternative than Category:Waterbomber... Up here in Canada a spotter aircraft, with a senior pilot, colloquially called a "bird dog" aircraft, orbits the fire, and tells the waterbombers where and when to drop their loads. These are also firefighting aircraft, but are not waterbombers. The structure I think makes the most sense would be for "air tanker" to be reserved for the aircraft used for refueling other aircraft. I think the current subcategories of various models of waterbomber should be moved to the category "waterbomber", and that waterbomber, and a category for the "bird dog" spotter aircraft should sit under firefighting aircraft. Helicopters that dip a bucket into a body of water, and then release the water over a fire could be considered "firefighting aircraft", without being considered "waterbombers", so perhaps there should be a "Category:Firefighting helicopters. Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, while Waterbomber may be the preferred term in Canada, it is not the common term, in generic usage or, more importantly in referenceable in industry literature, nor is it the official term in the U.S. In officialdom, airtanker is (note, spelled as all one word, although it does appear sometimes as two words). How do we approach this national/cultural language difference? We could do it democratically, although wikimedia isn't a democracy...in other words, how many airtankers/waterbombers come from Canada, and how many are US-built aircraft? As a further to that, the Canadair scoopers don't just drop water, they land in it too, which is a major difference between them and US built aircraft. Just some thoughts. Akradecki (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Geo Swan, especially on the structure as he proposes it. However, Akradecki may be right on the naming nomenclature (I can't make a call on that). Where and how it lands does not really seem to make a difference. As for resolution: Category:Air tanker clearly makes me think of "aircraft refueling aircraft". Possibly disambiguate as in "air tanker (firefighting)"? Ingolfson (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Akradecki asks "...how many airtankers/waterbombers come from Canada, and how many are US-built aircraft?" Well, technically, no US firm has ever built waterbombers. As I wrote above the Canadair aircraft are the only aircraft built to serve as waterbombers. Other aircraft serve as waterbombers, but they are retrofits from aircraft designed for other purposes. According to Canadair CL-215 and Canadair CL-415 just under 200 of these aircraft have been built.
FWIW the Canadair waterbombers aren't the only ones that could land on bodies of water, or that scooped water from bodies of water. WW II PBYs are among the aircraft adapted to serve as waterbombers that were adapted to scoop their payload. Geo Swan (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I prefer Waterbomber purely because it avoids confusion with aerial refuelling aircraft. I would also keep the Firefighting aircraft category as the parent cat of "waterbomber.--KTo288 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed that this CFD is still active, over two years after it started. Personally, I've always been comfortable with the terms firefighting aircraft, water bombers and airtankers since the 1960s, but I'm not resident in a nation where they are in use. I would be interested to learn if airtanker or waterbomber has the more common usage in the US, rather than the official term. Anyway, I will make some proposals:

  1. We retain Firefighting aircraft as the parent cat, move the content of Air tanker into that, because any difference is not at all clear. Air tanker can be made a soft redirect.
  2. We make a new subcategory Firefighting helicopters, that will hopefully negate the problem of deciding if each subject image shows some form of tanker.
  3. Where adapted aircraft are used in the activity, and sufficient images exist, we create subcategories using the basic name of the aircraft type plus the word "airtankers". It would be pluralized because such aircraft don't (usually) conform to a single definable standard. I have already incorporated such a structure in category:Agricultural aircraft.
PeterWD (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I just did step 1 among those you proposed. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

on Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/05/Category:Canadair water bombers Geo Swan added the following:

  • I think the consensus arrived at during the previous discussion was clear. There are multiple kinds of firefighting aircraft:
  1. "bird-dog" aircraft guide waterbombers to the best part of the fire to drop their load;
  2. waterbombers;
  3. helicopters that dip a bucket into bodies of water
What possible value would there be in collapsing the hierarchy agreed to in the earlier discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize! I read over this discussion too fast.
I agree with most of your proposals (and in fact we are doing duplicate work as I write). However, it is not clear to me that "waterbomber" refers to an aircraft specifically designed for that activity. The [[1]] and English Wikipedia articles do not make such a distinction.
I’m still unsure about how the consensus you describe translates in practice, so I will follow your re-organization before I write. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. I have worked a lot to clean-up and diffuse the categories under discussion. To sum up on the situation now:

I call on everyone to check on my work and I hope that this is a sufficiently clear structure that we can remove the pending CfD. Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I foresee problems with the term "bird-dog", that seems to be unencyclopedic and ambiguous (Cessna L-19 Bird Dog). en:WP only has (inconsistent) use in Buffalo Airways, where it seems to be more of a slang term. Its common use in north America for retrieval of shot birds also appears to be unfamiliar elsewhere; in UK, the normal term for that is "gun dog". In Jendsch 2008, Aerial Firefighting, "bird dog" (or bird-dog or birddog) is not used, but the role is separated into two very separate functions, "command plane" and "lead plane". Johnsen 2010 Fire Bombers in Action does use the term, but inconsistently, mixed with "spotter" and sometimes qualified with "(lead plane)". BTW, crop duster is technically applicable only to aircraft dropping seeds, fertiliser solids or insecticide dust via drop doors or venturis, rather than the more common agricultural practice of spraying liquids from aircraft via piping and nozzles.PeterWD (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, we can rename Category:Firefighting bird-dog aircraft‎ into Category:Firefighting lead aircraft which is currently a soft redirect (both categories were created simultaneously by two different editors). I’ll do that unless someone objects. Any other remarks? Ariadacapo (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion:

I am closing this CfD now, hoping that this compromise works for everyone. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)