Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04

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

April 2012[edit]

Category:Paintings in Kenwood House[edit]

This overlaps with Category:Iveagh Bequest (the Iveagh Bequest is the art collection housed in Kenwood House). Both should be merged into a single category called Category:Paintings in the Iveagh Bequest, following the naming pattern of other subcats of Category:Paintings in London. Ham (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged. Why do you prefer the Iveagh Bequest rather than Kenwood House, which seems standard to me? We use Yale Center for British Art, not Paul Mellon Collection. Just curious.- PKM (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
My thinking was that the Iveagh Bequest exists as an institution in its own right with trustees etc. I suppose an analogous example is the Courtauld Institute of Art (collection) within Somerset House (building) -- Paintings in Somerset House wouldn't seem right. The American model seems to be something else again; there a collection's identity remains intact after it's been bequeathed to an institution, so you often see, e.g., Andrew Mellon Collection, National Gallery of Art. You never see Mond Bequest, National Gallery, but you do see Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood House or simply Iveagh Bequest on its own, so it's quite unusual in the British context. Ham (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I like paintings in Kenwood house too--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, to be pedantic - would paintings recently purchased by English Heritage and hung with the collection at Kenwood House (e.g. File:Thomas howard suffolk.jpg) be considered part of the Iveagh Bequest?
I would have thought not. Either that painting could be outside the cat being proposed, or the merger goes ahead under the current name. Are there many works like this? Ham (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I am only aware of one in Commons, but I suspect there are a handful. I created the new cat to match an Institution template for Kenwood House, so we should also consider what the proper institution template should be. - PKM (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
English Heritage has this painting tagged KENWOOD HOUSE, SUFFOLK COLLECTION - answers that one! - PKM (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The English Heritage prints website uses the format "KENWOOD HOUSE, THE IVEAGH BEQUEST, London" and "KENWOOD HOUSE, SUFFOLK COLLECTION, London." We should probably follow their lead.
Is it too nutty to have 'Paintings in the Iveagh Bequest' and 'Paintings in the Suffolk Collection' both as subcats of 'Paintings in (or at) Kenwood House'? The Institution template could be Kenwood House with Iveagh Bequest or Suffolk Collection in the "location" parameter. This appeals to me, but I come from a family of librarians... - PKM (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
PS I'd be happy to work on the recategorization once we have consensus. - PKM (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Large images[edit]

Category has a purported criterion for inclusion which is not clear from the category name. Suggest renaming something like Category:Images of more than 50 megapixels, since "large" is way too ambiguous a term (large number of pixels? large number of bytes?). - dcljr (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree about the comment, but the criterion is shifting each year. On the png side, I would only include images that create thumbnail problems. On the jpeg side, I would include only images greater than 10 times the average modern Jpeg size, say 40 MB. Not sure this should be in the category name. --Foroa (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Foroa. Putting the criterion in the category name would make things unnecessarily complicated. The category is populated by a bot through the {{LargeImage}} template. Template and category are somewhat tied together. The criterion will be dynamic and an ever changing category name won't be very helpful either. --Dschwen (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Foroa--Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If there are specific sizes that cause problems with certain file formats, then separate categories should be created reflecting those sizes and file formats. And if the criteria for what is considered "large" change, then new categories can be created for those new criteria. The sizes of the images certainly aren't going to change, so what would be the problem with that approach? More to the point, if we have a category called "Large images", then people are bound to use it for whatever they happen to think is a "large" image (see also the discussion at the template's talk page). It doesn't really matter if it's a hidden category intended to be populated by a bot or not; it's a common enough phrase that people will probably want to use it regardless of the criteria for inclusion (note that the criteria aren't even given in the template itself, which makes its use similarly ambiguous). BTW, does anyone know if the bot that populates this cat also removes images that don't belong there? Does it add the template to images that are "manually" added to the cat (and belong there) but not via the template? - dcljr (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I operate the bot and yes, it is designed to also remove the tag from images where it doesn't belong. But since I'm fed up with people who love to argue about the exact pixel number and exact byte number that should constitute a Large Image I usually deactivate removal of "wrong" tags. --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is it so hard not to discuss about this stupid insignificant little template?! I guess because everybody has an opinion on what a large image should be. Textbook bike shed example! Just let the template be, trust my common sense and not overthink this thing. There is absolutely no gain here from complicating matters. This CFD just binds resources in a point less discussion. There I did it. I lost my temper and now there is no chance in hell the originator of this CFD will concede and let it go. Great.. Sorry guys! --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a typical "In Bot we trust" case. Let it go, no need to spend our energy in verifying 5000 items in a technical category that has no topical value. --Foroa (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
(Don't be intimidated by the length of this reply. I'm not ranting, just trying to be precise.) Hmm... I'm not sure I understand the way this discussion is going. Foroa, no one has to "spend our energy in verifying 5000 items", since the bot does that already. And note that I'm not suggesting a change to the criteria being used by the bot, only the name of the category. I'm not even suggesting renaming the template, although I think that would give some significant benefits, as well, which I'll mention below.

Dschwen, the presumption that "everybody has an opinion on what a large image should be" is precisely why the category was nominated in the first place: its name is ambiguous. (How can you be making my exact point back to me, and yet also be against changing anything? [g]) Having categories named things like "Large images" or "Small images" is just inviting trouble. Now, judging from the template's talk page (which I hadn't seen when I started this nomination), it seems that it has been "so hard not to discuss" the template in part because of the ambiguity in its name (and, until it was clarified, the criterion being used — digression: I assume it's still just a single criterion; I can't actually find the source code for your bot that handles {{LargeImage}}s, only the code for {{Location}}s).

That all being said, however, this nomination is only about the category, and just changing the category name is, AFAICT, a completely trivial matter: you change the cat ref in the template and MediaWiki does the rest (via the job queue). If/when you decide to change the criterion again, you can simply change the category ref in the template, wait for MW to do its thing, then change your script and let it remove any images that no longer fit the new criteria (then delete the old cat). Right? How is this "unnecessarily complicating" things?

Finally, even though I'm not calling for it, note that also using a more precise template name (e.g., {{Images over 50 megapixels}}, along with a more precise warning message in the template itself) would have added benefits, including not having to discuss the ambiguous naming of the template with other users in the future, being able to re-enable the "removal" feature of your bot again (since people are less likely to complain about a template marking images over 50 megapixels being removed from an image that's not over 50 megapixels — oh, but I see your bot is already back to removing the template), and having the option to keep the old template + category around for users that still need them when a new criterion is chosen.

And finally-finally [g], I am not "conced[ing] and let[ting] it go" not because you lost your temper, but because I find your position... well, frankly, strange. It smacks of a kind of "doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome" style of "insanity". I'm not mad about this; it just seems kinda like you're getting aggravated over continually stepping on rocks but you're ignoring the suggestion to wear shoes... [g] - dcljr (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And BTW, AFAICT the criterion for inclusion has changed exactly once in five years. This doesn't really match the claims that it's an "ever changing" criterion or one that changes "each year"... - dcljr (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


As Dschwen mentioned {{LargeImage}} is really not suggestiv. It's only for JPEG's and also redundant to {{InteractiveViewer}}!?! -- πϵρήλιο 01:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I hadn't noticed that other template. I'm not sure what you mean with your first sentence, but note that {{LargeImage}} is not only for JPEGs since, for example, DschwenBot placed the template on File:Milwaukee 1858.png. - dcljr (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok I`m sorry, then the error-message of the viewer is wrong. Yes then also forget my first sentence. -- πϵρήλιο 12:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Just a word of explanation, why I have created {{InteractiveViewer}}: for certain kind of images, like scanned maps with lots of details, it is pretty useful to have this viewer tool also for smaller files (than 50MP). --Alexrk2 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

... And, of course, nothing ever came of this discussion. Not even officially closed. Typical. - dcljr (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Small images[edit]

Category has a purported criterion for inclusion which is not clear from category name. Suggest rename to something like Category:Images up to 500 pixels in length (the supposed current criterion), since "small" is too ambiguous a term (small number of pixels? small number of bytes?). Note the four similarly-named subcategories:

all of which have the additional ambiguity of whether the "small" refers to the image or the object it's an image of. I'm directing CFDs for them to this entry, as well. - dcljr (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with new names. --Butko (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok then we do so. But I would propose a categorization for example like Category:Coats of arms by pixel size‎ and then Category:Coats of arms up to 500 pixels in length, Category:Coats of arms up to 250 pixels in length. (Also for me personally are 500 px not small.) -- πϵρήλιο 13:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
No need to change. That limit might shift over time. Personally I would limit it to a smaller surface (50 K pixel). 500 pixel length is misleading if the height is the critical dimension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foroa (talk • contribs) 10 April 2012‎ (UTC)

This category should have a template like {{thumbnail}}, otherwise it is difficult to manage. -- πϵρήλιο 10:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I put really the point of this category in question. Almost all coats of arms of the largest online collection of the world would in here (put in {{ngw2}}). Where is the sense? That although I have set down the size from 500 to 250px. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 15:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena[edit]

Proposition of reviewing and fusion of Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena + Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena of Earth: see discussion page [1].

84.97.149.43 03:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Funny photographs[edit]

Unused pictures, childish, close to vandalism UncivilFire (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree It is too vague and subjective for a category and doesn't seem particularly useful for a project like Wikimedia Commons. —Cartoonmaster (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Clean intermittent self-catheterization[edit]

repulsive, inappropriate, disgusting 94.134.93.93 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete There is no need for these photos on Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. No valid reason for deletion of the category (or even the individual pics) has been given. I wonder about the category title, though... - dcljr (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Librettos opera by composers[edit]

Wrong English. Should be "Opera librettos composed by..." etc. I believe the categories to be highly superfluous anyway, so I'd rather delete them than move them. I cannot see any use by collecting images of libretto booklets by composer. ~ AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Rename to the proper English grammar (word order and singular object of the preposition), Category:Opera librettos by composer, and similarly rename its subcategories. I don't think "it doesn't look useful to me" is a good enough reason to delete the categories, and they seem populated enough to make sense as categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)