Commons:Categories for discussion/2009

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

October 2009[edit]

Category:Railway lines[edit]

I supposed, category:railway lines is intended for images and files sorted by specific track line and country, while category:rail tracks for images sorted by type of technical element (points, sleepers, technical drawings of rails etc.). However, the meta-subcategory category:rail tracks by country and all its subcategories (and its current content) is mainly duplicite toward category:railway lines by country and splits the content needlessly. Some conceptual treatment is needed. Let's not neglect the distinction between (classical) railways and rail transport tracks generally (including trams, funiculars, rapid and city transport rail systems etc.) too. --ŠJů (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the content of
Category:Rail tracks in Switzerland
Category:Railway lines in Switzerland
I think the situation is quite o.k. like this: Detail photos of the track are in the first mentioned category, photos with landscape and/or trains in the second category. I don't think we should change this but it is necessary to regularly come back and sort out badly categorized photos. --Gürbetaler (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
So, should we have separately categories of railway lines in global views and separately categories of detail images from railway lines? As I mentioned, detailed images of rail track components should have their own categories: points, sleepers, derails, overhead lines, cog-rails, railway signs and signals etc., by type of device. However, why we need categories category:rail tracks by country and its subcategories in paralell to category:railway lines by country? We can see examples what is (or was) included in the Category:Rail tracks in Switzerland:
Forch - Forchbahn IMG 3909.jpg Jona (SG) - Blumenau IMG 1838.JPG Jona (SG) - Blumenau IMG 1835.JPG Zürich - Affoltern IMG 3882.JPG Zürich - Affoltern IMG 3880.JPG Kempraten - Ansicht von Süden.jpg
I see no reason to divide such photos into two different and paralel categories accidentally. Even if your idea were good, the practical effect is and will be a chaos, duplicity and shattering. We should put them together, no matter if under the first name or under the second one. Eventual category for images of rail elements should be named quite otherwise, to not be confused with images of railway lines (tracks). --ŠJů (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but railway lines and rail tracks are two different things. Rail track is a detail of the physical plant like overhead line, points etc. and I see absolutely no reason to remove this category. Or how would you then call a category where I can find photos that show how track is constructed? Sure it is possible to put some photos in a more detailled category. Rail track is part of "Rail transport infrastructure" while railway lines aren't.--Gürbetaler (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, we have in Czech a term "železniční trať". It can be traslated "rail track" or "railway line" (die Bahnstrecke or die Bahnlinie in German). It means a way for trains. Unfortunately, the category name "Rail tracks in Switzerland" associates this meaning primarily, synonymic to "Railway lines in Switzerland". For the second meaning of the English words "rail track", we have a word "kolej" in Czech (das Gleis in German). I suspect that English language can hardly differentiate this two meanings. We have "dvoukolejná trať" in Czech (or zweigleisige Strecke in German), but no "double-track track" in English - only "double-track" (= Zweistrecke?, dvojtrať?). Track which have two tracks. The English word "track" is ambiguous, compared to other languages. The category name should be unambiguous. (The word "rail" means rather "kolejnice" (Schiene) than "kolej" (Gleis).)
We can have a global view of some track/line (e. g. aerial view), we can have a detailed view (e. g. a commonly photo, ranging tens or hundreds metres or some few kilometres usually), we can have a more detalied view from the line (a point, a platform, a station, a sign along the track, a rail). Both the global and the detailed views belong to the identical and specific track(s)/line(s) allways. We can categorize them into subcategories by station or by section, we can categorize them in parallel by type of device (category of overhead lines, of cog-rails, sleepers etc.), but the category Category:Rail tracks in Switzerland itself is nothing but harmful duplicity of Category:Railway lines in Switzerland. It causes that unsorted photos of railways in Switzerland fall (accidentally) into two different categories, which isn't included one in the second even. Categories "railway lines in..." was always intended for photos of real parts and places of railway infrastructure, not (only) for some abstract and ideal lines. I wrote arguments and I gave examples that category name "Rail tracks in (country)" attracts such images which belong into category "Railway lines" (and its subcategories) primarily. If we should have in "rail tracks" every photo like this (no detailed photo of rails, but global view of railway station), we can place here 80 % of railway photos from Switzerland. What it makes sense? As I said already, an eventual category for images of rail track elements should be named quite otherwise, to not be confused with images of railway lines (tracks). "Rail track elements" would be a suitable name (per samples Architectural elements, Bridge details, Vehicle parts etc.). For images of rail track details, the unambiguous name can be "Details of rail tracks", "Types of rail tracks" etc. If you understand the problem, maybe you will come up with some better solutions. --ŠJů (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What we discuss here is a linguistic problem. Often, people who put photos in categories do not really understand the words. Hence we shouldn't rename categories but try to give useful translations. "Rail tracks" is the perfectly correct name for the category "Gleise" and "Railway lines" translates as "Eisenbahnstrecken". There is even a distinction in German between "Linie" and "Strecke" but unfortunately both translate as "line" in English...
And then, unfortunately, many uploaders do not really care about categorizing and I have corrected hundreds of category entries. Renaming "Rail tracks" doesn't resolve this problem. Unfortunately.--Gürbetaler (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
line = Strecke/Linie
track = Gleis
rail = Schiene
single track, double track = eingleisig, zweigleisig/doppelspurig
double track line = doppelspurige Strecke
Sure, naming of categories is a linguistic problem. That's why we need to keep from unfitted category names which cause that image files are disorganized. I have made clear that "rail tracks" isn't an unambiguous equivalent of "Gleise" but that this term have a meaning synonymic to "railway lines" too. That's why such categories attract many of images which belongs into category "Railway lines" (and its subcategories) primarily. Btw., as you noted, railway lines is ambiguous too, in English. In some regions, the Strecken-system of passenger transportation is or was changed to Line-system which means that one line (Linie) can use more "Strecken" and one "Strecke" can be used by more "Lines" (Linien). Hundred years ago, such trend changed a tram transport. But this ambiguity causes no serious problem yet, contrary to the previous one. This problem concerns tens of countries, category descriptions aren't able to reduce all disarray caused by unsuitable category names. --ŠJů (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, dear ŠJů, but you have a linguistic problem. Your interpretation of the term rail track is wrong. Please read en:Rail tracks.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I claim that categories "Railway lines..." are intended for photos of real parts and places of railway infrastructure, not (only) for some abstract and ideal lines. This meaning is practically identical with the definitiion of en:Rail tracks you linked. Hardly some photo displays a railway line but not a rail tracks, hardly som photo displays a rail tracks but not a railway line. Rail tracks are the main visible physical substance (not only an equipment) of every railway line. --ŠJů (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I would support the original proposal to merge the categories. Both are describing the same thing - all the images which are now categorised under "railway lines" also come within "rail track"; if there is a need for a category just showing close-up images of railway infrastructure, then it should be created for the infrastructure in question. There is no need for categories for every country and in fact it is more helpful from a categorisation point of view if each section of rail track (Linie) can be assigned to a particular route (Strecke), rather than being all put together as photos of lines (Gleise). Ravenseft (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but you mix up the German terms. Eisenbahnlinie is not a synonym to the English word railway line. In terms of infrastructure we only speak about Eisenbahnstrecke and that would be Category:Railway lines which should be geographically divided. Ãnd the Category:Rail tracks should contain pictures that show details of rail tracks de:Gleis and these can be very different among several countries. If you put them all together in the same global category you will never again find anything. But building up specific sub-categories like Category:Gauntlet track or Category:Rack railway points is a good idea. But somebody would have to sort out several hundreds of pictures and have to find good enough sub-categories to avoid that one category has more than about one hundred pictures. Not an easy task!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point, and we need to make sure that only de:Gleis are found in the Rail tracks category. The best way to do that would be to create sub-categories for the different infrastructure. Yes, this will not be an easy task, but it would be best to start now rather than allow more and more non-rail track images be put into this category. We don't need to divide between countries at the beginning and we don't need to sort everything straightaway, this can be done over time. In my categorisations for the UK, I have found not so many images which would come into this category. Ravenseft (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Given a category like Category:Midland Main Line, should there be a subcategory Category:Track of the Midland Main Line that includes any photo that shows the actual track? I don't see that it matters whether an image is close-up or not, if it shows a track it seems to be in scope for both the lines and tracks categories. Personally I don't think the two category trees are needed in practice: if you want to find photos of track, it's not hard to find them in the "lines" categories. If it's supposed to be easy to find particular types of track, it would be easier to create a category "Lines using track type X" and add the relevant lines categories to that (or entire country categories, if they all use the same type of track.) ghouston (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment . Hmmm, this is tricky. From a linguistic point of view, I agree that "railway lines" and "railway tracks" can refer to different things. "Tracks" mean the actual structures upon which the trains run, while "lines" can either be used as a synonym for "tracks" or to mean entire stretches of tracks. If both categories are to be retained, I would suggest that "Railway tracks" be used for photographs of the structures, while "Railway lines" be used only as a meta category containing sub-categories relating to named rail services from point to point. For example, sub-categories of "Railway lines in Ruritania" could be "Ruritania Main Line" and "Dinetobrivsk–Syldania Line". — Cheers, JackLee talk 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

November 2009[edit]

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)


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)