Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05

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

May 2013[edit]

Category:Sakura[edit]

This category and most of its children (all but the ones specifically for Japan) should be renamed to Category:Cherry blossoms. The reason being, sakura is a Japanese term for cherry blossoms. The category description states: "This is a category for the Spring blossoming Japanese cherry trees, called sakura". Well, they are called sakura, but mostly by Japanese. On English Wikipedia, sakura redirects to w:Cherry blossom, and that article even clearly states in the lead: "A cherry blossom is the flower of any of several trees of genus Prunus, particularly the Japanese Cherry, Prunus serrulata, which is sometimes called sakura after the Japanese (桜 or 櫻; さくら)". The use of sakura is incorrect, and - with all due respect for the Japanese culture, which I am quite fond of myself - can be even somewhat offensive (I am about to create Category:Cherry blossoms in Korea, and I am pretty sure that should not be called "Sakura in Korea"... anyway, w:Cherry_blossom#South_Korea needs expansion, but that's OT here.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Category:Cherry Blossom and rename that to Category:Cherry blossom –⁠moogsi (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Moogsi, but I think first a naming strategy for Trees in flower should be decided (at the moment there are at least 4 plausible strategies: Genus in flower, Genus blossom, Genus (flowers) and Genus flowers). Category:Cherry Blossom should then be renamed according to that decision. Anna reg (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Cherry blossom festivals are a separate things from the more general pictures of cherry blossoms. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Companies of Moldova by industry[edit]

unnecessary layer for a sparse category tree Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Has potential, and three subcats already. Keep. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hybrid libraries[edit]

Recommend deleting category. Basically, almost all modern libraries, certainly all national and academic libraries, are hybrid libraries. A standard modern non-private library has many books and periodicals as well as access to many databases, ebooks, ejournals and other formats of information such as DVD's, CD's and maps. DGtal (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In France we have special buildings that are called médiathèques (en:Multimedia library). They contain books and DVD, and sometimes are important buildings in towns or villages, with a social aim. It would be better to find another name for this category, why not Category:Multimedia library ? Jack ma (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Jack, this is in contrast to what? At least in the U.S., it would be hard to find a public or academic library that didn't meet this definition. Is it different in France? Are there still a large number of libraries there that have only books and print periodicals? - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the difference Jack described is quantitive rather that qualitative. Virtually all modern libraries have multimedia, the question is what % of the ollections is print and ebook/ejournal and what percent is movies, music, games etc. In Israel we have a médiathèque in Holon that also is a youth theater and cinemathèque, but this is much more culturally diverse than most médiathèques in the world. DGtal (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Way of life during Antiquity[edit]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Way of life in ancient Asia[edit]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Late medieval way of life (12th-15th centuries)[edit]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Dark Ages and early medieval way of life[edit]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cheese stoppers[edit]

There is no English term such as cheese stopper. there is a polish word, Koreczki "cork", which is sort of related to "cheese hedgehogs" or Kaseigel. rename to Koreczki Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is this lexical gap in English, I'd be perfectly happy with "cheesecorks" :) This is not a Polish concept AFAIK, it is quite popular in the UK at kids' parties or cheap buffets (probably less popular since the 70s, when people thought cheese and pineapple was a good combination). But you are quite right that there is apparently no English name for these things, despite having spawned the concept of a "cocktail sausage" (tiny sausages meant to be skewered on cocktail sticks like this) –⁠moogsi (blah) 15:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
due to lack of further discussion, i moved them to Category:Käseigel, and redirect this to that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed[edit]

Category:Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto)

Someone usurped all the images that were in this categroy, and placed them in a brand new, narrower, category -- even though about half of them don't fit in the narrower category. They used a bot to perform the usurpation, and the bot failed to leave an open and transparent explanation for the usurpation. The target directory for the usurpation was Category:Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto). I suggest the following images, for instance, either don't show station platforms at all, or primarly show tracks or trainsheds, and so shouldn't have been usurped: 1, 2, 3. Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Geo, the new category name (Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed) was unfortunately inconsistent with the rest of the category tree and was improperly capitalized. The form of disambiguation was inconsistent with the other Union Station categories, and (except for proper or formal names) the location should always follow the subject (not the other way). Consistency in category naming and categorization is extremely important - when we are inconsistent, we always end up with poorly categorized images and/or duplicate categories. I moved the category name to the same category name we seem to use for every other photo of this sort. Almost all the photos seem to be of the train platforms (which will almost always necessitate also capturing parts of the tracks and the train sheds in the images). You are correct that the three specific images don't seem to fit the train platform category, but then we should create subcats for Category:Rail tracks at Union Station (Toronto) and Category:Train shed at Union Station (Toronto) if there are specific images that someone would use to illustrate either of those subjects. I am not saying that we should not, for example, have a category that allows people to easily find, for example, images of the train shed (quite the opposite actually), but we can't name categories with no regard to how the rest of the category tree is structured and named.

And, by the way, nobody usurped anything. That's not helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyhow I suggest Category:Train station platforms in Canada is not a good example of consistency. We have multiple super categories for train stations in Canada -- maybe too many. We have hundreds of images of train stations in Canada. Well over half of those image include the train station platform. If Category:Train station platforms in Canada was really a valuable category most of those images would already have been included in it. But they weren't.
Category:Train station platforms in Canada contained just over a dozen images, all but two of which were instances of GO Train stations -- that were already included in Category:GO Train Stations. Check those GO stations and you will find they contain other basically similar images that were not included in Category:Train station platforms in Canada. Of the other two, one was an image of an Edmonton LRT station platform -- not all that different from 20 other images of Edmonton LRT station platforms that were not included. Anyhow, on the grounds that I think "train stations" iplies heavy rail, not light rail, I removed it. The other image was a VIA station, already inlcuded in a super category for VIA stations.
WRT train sheds -- they are rare -- at least in North America. Toronto's Union Station has one. Are there any others in Ontario? In Canada? So train sheds are far more noteworthy than train station platforms.
Organizations that run databases should have a single person who is responsible for consistently managing the databases schema. Commons lacks this. So it is at a constant risk of a kind of schema creep. This risk is multiplied by the fact that when most categories are started the person starting them doesn't bother explicitly stating wha should and shouldn't be included. (I am guilty of this as well.)
An anecdote to illustrate my point. I was a member of a small food coop, some decades ago -- in pre-PC days actually. The food coop's inventory was maintained on a rolodex of 3x5 cards. When I first had to pay attention to that rolodex it had a section labelled "cereals" that listed our past purchases of wheat, barley, millet, oats. At some point someone strted a card for oatmeal, and included it in this section. Well, I went away for a while, and when I returned, that coop had started to expensive, organic, crunchy granola, muesli (a kind of uncooked crunchy granola), and even organic, processed corn-flake like boxes. I found they had taken over the "cereals" section -- and a brand new section had been created for "grains and nutes". I see that kind of category creep here all the time.
We currently have:
  1. Category:Heritage Railway Stations of Canada
  2. Category:Demolished train stations in Canada‎
  3. Category:Former train stations in Canada‎
  4. Category:Canadian National Railway stations
  5. Category:Canadian Pacific Railway stations
  6. Category:Rapid transit stations in Canada
  7. Category:Amtrak stations in Canada‎
Do we really need Category:Heritage Railway Stations of Canada and Category:Demolished train stations in Canada‎ and Category:Former train stations in Canada‎?
Categories suck. They had no history of when an element was added, and when it was removed. Administrators routinely delete empty categories -- even though they have way of knowing if the category had always been empty, whether it was emptied by a cluelss newbie or vandal, or was deleted by a knowledgable insider. I think we need a better replacement for categories as an organizing tool. Geo Swan (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • WRT usurpation. You wrote: "And, by the way, nobody usurped anything. That's not helpful.". Over on the wikipedia I have an essay w:User:Geo Swan/on apologies. Are you telling me you think I should apologize fr using the term usurpation? In that essay I suggest practically everyone sucks at apologies. I say I will apologize, but if I don't already recognize what merits an apology I need the person who wants one to spell out why, first, and I have to be convinced one is in order.
Way back in 2005 commons allowed images with non-commercial licenses. I'd uploaded only a few images, maybe one hundred images. But they included a dozen or or two dozen images of Canadian Coast Guard and Canadian Navy vessels that were uploaded using the then perfectly valid non-commercial licenses. In March of 2005 it was announced that new images with non-commercial licenses could no longer be uploaded. And all the legacy images with non-commercial licenses would soon be deleted.
It was a huge disappointment for me. I decided I would spend the next weekend searching for replacement images that were in the public domain. I decided I could search for instances where a USN or USCG individual was assigned to a Canadian ship, or was on a joint mission with US vessels, or visited a Canadian port. Those images were in the public domain.
I wasn't as experience at searching for images, and there were probably a lot few images to find. I spent 14 hours looking for public domain replacements.
So I was realy cross when I noticed someone had come along and removed the valid lisense tag on my new, legitimate public domain images, replacing it with a speedy tag saying the image should be deleted because it lacked a porper license. I looked at the confitribution history of the is guy, and he had done this to something like 100 Canadian images.
I asked this quality contrl volunteer why they removed my valid licenses. He said something like: "I know some Canadian people reacted to the change in licensing by putting bogus valid licenses on images that are copyvios, so I went through all those images and removed the bogus licences. I reminded him of (1) his obligation to use meaningful edit summaries; and (2) the recommendation he leave a heads-up on the talk page of contributors when he nominated their images for deletion.
His response was classic, and it is one I have encountered over and over again, in one form or another since then. His response (paraphrasing from memory):
I could take the steps you recommend, but the time required to do so would erode the efficiency of my quality control efforts.
Well, he may have regarded his quality control efforts as "efficient", but he also had made a lot of mistakes.
It should have taken him less than 30 seconds to check the source pages of the images I uploaded. It should have taken him less than 30 seconds to leave a heads-up on my talk page. The replacement public domain images I found took almost an hour each to find, so his unwillingness to spend that 30 second was highly annoying. He had also removed the valid licenses from some images uploaded by User:CambridgeBayWeather -- claiming they were too professional looking to be the work of an amateur, and they were from a remote location, unlikely to be the home of one of the project's volunteers. Well CambridgeBayWeather does live in Cambridge Bay, so his images too were false positives.
After spending a considerable effort to comply with the (new) policy in my search for those policy compliant replacement images I decided it was absolutely essential that our projects' quality control volunteers -- those who enforce our policies -- should follow our policies to the letter.
What I think this principle means, with regard to Siebot, is that if it doesn't leave meaningful edit summaries it should not be used.
If there is a meaningful explanation, based on a policy based, or a guideline, or a long established central discussion, that is another matter. Good faith contributors make mistakes. I think they should feel entitled to have others who think they made a mistake, to provide some kind of clue as to what they see as a mistake -- even if it only a link in an edit summary.
I don't think I was at fault starting Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed. I had never heard of COM:CDC until you mentioned it. I am not a newbie. I have uploaded close to 10,000 images since 2005. There have been dozens of categories I thought were valid that were deleted due to being empty after someone took all their contents and placed them in some other category, without meaningful explanation.
I tried to figure out how I could figure out who was responsible for emptying the category of the contents I put in it, so I could aske them why they did this. I figured I would have to find the source code for siebot, see if I could read the language it was written in, to see where it said the bot should read the list of actions it should take. I didn't think I could count on finding the source online. I didn't think I could count on being able to understand the source code and figure out where the list of actions was kept. I didn't think I could count on the list of actions being easy to decode, or even that it would be on a server I had access to.
Let me repeat my key points:
  1. I think it is absolutely essential that our projects' quality control volunteers -- those who enforce our policies -- should follow our policies to the letter.
  2. I think Category:Train station platforms in Canada and Category:Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto) are not a good example of consistency. Category:Train station platforms in Canada is a category that should be deleted as it is (1) barely used; (2) overlaps better, more useful categories.
  3. If Toronto's Union Station has the only trainshed in Canada, or if there are only a very few trainsheds in Canada then there is no consistency problem with having a category for Union Station's trainshed.
  4. As per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Boatlifts in Henrichenburg, Germany I have never been able to count on consistency.
Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! :) That's quite the response. To keep this discussion from spiraling into a lengthy novel, I'll respond in brief bullet points. Just because my responses are brief and to the point, it does not mean that I am being dismissive of your comments or intentionally being curt.

  • I have no problem with you putting all the images in question in Category:Rail tracks at Union Station (Toronto) or Category:Train shed at Union Station (Toronto), as appropriate and Category:Train station platforms in Canada could be deleted for all I care. I am not fussed whether we have a category for train platforms or not. All I care about here is that the categories we have are correctly named.
  • I do believe train sheds are less common in North America (so is train travel). But historically they did exist in greater number in Canada - off the top of my head, the train sheds in Ottawa were demolished to make way for Rideau Canal beautification, and the Halifax station used to have a lovely one. Perhaps I have not expressed myself well, but I have no issue with a category for Union Station's trainshed. I encourage it. I have a problem with a "grab bag" category name like Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed because it presents so many problems.
  • Commons is a work in progress. To borrow an en.wp expression, there will always be OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments to be made. Problems elsewhere are never an excuse to throw naming conventions out the window.
  • As per COM:CAT, categories should be assessed on the basis of their scope, not what happens to be in them at any given moment. The fact that there are other images that are not as well categorized as they should be is not a good reason to establish inconsistent category naming.
  • Category:Heritage Railway Stations of Canada, Category:Demolished train stations in Canada‎, Category:Former train stations in Canada‎ are each a distinctive category. There is no overlap. The first refers to a specific federal heritage designation (thus the caps). The second refers to stations that are no more. The third refers to stations that have been repurposed for new uses. (BTW, there is a discussion going on the moment whereby "Former [type of building]" categories would be renamed "Repurposed [type of building]" since former can so often be understood to mean destroyed. The discussion has stalled on the meaning of the meaning of the word "demolished"). Arguably, some hatnotes would be of value here though.
  • Categories *do* suck, but until the Mediawiki software is significantly updated to allow for tags, that's what we are stuck with.
  • I didn't say you should apologize for using the word "usurped". I said it was inaccurate. Nobody usurped anything. But you certainly have no reason to apologize.
  • We are all quality control volunteers on Commons.
  • I'm sorry you had that problem way back when with a person who clearly appears to have been a complete asshole. It is both a blessing and a curse that collaborative projects such as this attract all types.
  • We should all be following our policies and guidelines and practices. But there is often not going to be agreement about what it means to have followed a policy to the letter in any given circumstances. And there is so much clean-up being undertaken at any given point here on Commons, that is not to be unexpected that people are going to be doing what they think is routine clean-up that turns out to raise concerns. The more helpful approach is to assume good faith and engage in discussion (and then raise bloody hell if the other person/people fail to treat you with respect). And following things to the letter works both ways. Category naming consistency is very important, negative past experiences and random examples of bad categorization notwithstanding.
  • I don't find your criticism of Category:Train station platforms in Canada all that convincing. But to me, the more important issue is working within the existing category naming scheme. If the scheme sucks, work to change it (and/or just avaoid the problematic subcategories). This particular issue (platforms, train sheds, etc.) strikes me as one that might be requiring some consideration and discussion at a more general level. I used to be completely frustrated by the monuments and memorials categories - I was just trying to sort out the images on a Toronto (and to a lesser extent, Canada) basis, but jesus fucking christ the categories were a mess. I got involved in a discussion related to the top categories Category:Memorials and Category:Monuments, both longstanding categories, and it quickly became apparent that notwithstanding that there were 1000s of monument and memorial subcategories on the Commons, there was no clear consensus on what constituted a monument versus a memorial and which one (if either) was a subcategory of the other. Things were changed, and it now makes sense.
  • I went on way longer than intended. Sorry. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time for a detailed reply. It seems we are in complete agreement.
Thanks for the information about other Canadian train sheds. I went looking in for some among our existing pictures, thinking maybe Winnipeg or Thunder Bay might have had one. Some of those European train sheds were beautiful, and even the ugly ones are interesting.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I admit that I haven't read the whole discussion, but it looks like there's a consensus and no objections. Is there anything left to do here? --rimshottalk 18:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stucco artists[edit]

Category is quite hard to find. Template:Occupation/list suggests "plasterer", why not rename the category to "plasteres" as well? --Flominator (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that plasterer is a tradesman making general plasterwork, not sure we can mix it up with "artistic" plasterwork. --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Like Foroa says, it's like the old "What do you do?" "I'm a painter" "Pictures or houses?". Except in this case, "plasterer" only means a tradesperson who will come to your house and plaster a wall, not an artist –⁠moogsi (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Should we then maybe change Template:Occupation/list? --Flominator (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Changed Template:Occupation/en [1] --Flominator (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
This will do, though "Stuccoists" is an alternative. Not plasterers. Johnbod (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tulips miscellaneous group[edit]

This grab-bag grouping under a "miscellaneous" title is inconsistent with the approach on Commons to categorization and simply renders it more difficult to find the content (there are times when a miscellany category makes sense, but this is not it). I'm guessing that the intent was a good faith intention to clean up the main tulipa category, but grouping subcats that have very little to do with one another in a "misc" category is not a great way to do it. I would have though the better way to do this would be a category along the lines of "Tulipa by species/type/genus..." (whatever the right jargon is), so as to clearly delineate the subcats pertaining to types of tulips from those pertaining to other subjects. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that the similar categories have also been created for other types of flowers (e.g. Category:Lilies miscellaneous group). I will tag those as well, and direct people to this discussion so we have more input. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
And Category:Miscellaneous Lilium to make it simpler. Miscellaneous is a wonderful word for categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind that category so much (althought it should be Category:Miscellaneous lilium), although I'd prefer that such images remain in the main category until such time as a subcat is created for that particular species/type/cultivar/etc. (again, I am demonstrating my complete lack of knowledge of flowers by not knowing the right word to use here). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears to only be two categories - for lilies and tulips. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
And don't forget Category:Tulipa Miscellaneous Group using uppercase to make confusion complete. --Foroa (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Nice catch. I hadn't noticed that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The reasons for my doing:
We have in commons a very valuable botanical and zoological taxonomic system.
There are many new non-taxonomic categories for user with other interests (e.g. themes collected in "Tulips miscellaneous group").
There is the scientific name Tulipa, used for the botanical part.
There is the no-scientific name "tulips", used for the non-botanical part. Orchi (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I wish you would not use the term "group" for these informal collections of categories. The word "group" is used as a formal name for groups of cultivars, as recommended by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Uleli (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Orchi that the vernacular name "tulips" should not been used.
I agree with Uleli that "group" is not suitable. For me it would suggest that this category contains e.g. a group of "Tulipa hybrids" ot "Tulipa cultivars".
Why would we, e.g., not rename this category "Tulipa miscellaneous" or only "Miscellaneous"? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest to move Category:Tulips miscellaneous group to Category:Categories related to Tulipa or Category:Categories related to Tulipa taxon: it might be a better name and used in a systematic way for isolation between taxonomy and common names. . --Foroa (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for interest and proposals. I agree with with user:Uleli entirely. Thanks to user:Foroa's proposals.What do you think about a short and universal way: e.g. „Category:Tulipa non-taxon“ or „Category:Lilium no taxon“. Orchi (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I remain surprised how much you Taxonomy/TOL people are really immersed in your Taxon world (to the extent that I called one of the colleagues a taxomaniac). So what you are proposing, "no taxon" is just a statement meaning "all the rest that is not from our Taxonomy world, so stay out, I don't care". I guess that 95 % of the Commons contributors shy away from the complex Taxonomy world with their Latin abracadabra, so they will happily dump their stuff in miscellaneous categories or non taxon categories as this is the easiest passe-partout. So a number of comments on the proposed Category:Categories related to Tulipa taxon :

  • It describes exactly what we intent, Tulip non-taxon could mean anything
  • By its name, it is a meta category, so no images should be dropped in it, only categories, decreasing maintenance work
  • you all try to use the shortest possible name, but this is nor really relevant here as it is only manipulated to structure categories, not images.

Anyway, without clear names and by using category names like miscellaneous, various, other, ... you are just attracting lazy categorisation and subsequent maintenance work. And frankly, I fail to understand why I should not drop any special Lilium image into Category:Miscellaneous Lilium; I guess that a substantial part of the Lilium images would qualify for this category.

We better decide carefully as this type of Taxonomy/common name bridge category will probably propagate very quickly to other taxon. --Foroa (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm concentrating more on the rose categories, but I will repeat here what I already said for Category:Lilies miscellaneous group - in my opinion, it would be better to create a category named Category:Tulipa species and have the categories collected in Category:Tulips miscellaneous group moved back to Category:Tulipa. As the main category for tulips, it should be possible to have different topics concerning this plant in the main category. If one topic takes over (as is happening with the species), you have to create a metacategory for this topic - not for all others, as you did here...
I also don't think that anybody can easily understand what exactly can be found/should be sorted in miscellaneous group... Anna reg (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lilies miscellaneous group[edit]

Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Tulips miscellaneous group Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish you would not use the term "group" for these informal collections of categories. The word "group" is used as a formal name for groups of cultivars, as recommended by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Uleli (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The vernacular name "lilies" should not been used. I agree with Uleli that "group" is not suitable, because it would indeed suggest that this category contains e.g. a group of "Lilium hybrids" or "Lilium cultivars". Why would we, e.g., not rename this category "Lilium miscellaneous" or only "Miscellaneous"?--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't like this category - in my opinion it would be better to create a category named Category:Lilium species and have the categories collected in Category:Lilies miscellaneous group remain/moved back to Category:Lilium. Anna reg (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ship propellers[edit]

Shouldn't the name of this category be Ships' propellers? Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether you think the word ship is being used attributively or not. I think it is; "ship propellers" sounds fine to me –⁠moogsi (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Frankly I don't understand w:Noun adjunct, but I note it says:
Noun adjuncts were traditionally mostly singular (e.g. "trouser press") except when there were lexical restrictions (e.g. "arms race"), but there is a recent trend towards more use of plural ones, especially in UK English. Many of these can also be and/or were originally interpreted and spelled as plural possessives (e.g. "chemicals' agency", "writers' conference", "Rangers' hockey game"), but they are now often written without the apostrophe, although this is criticised by some authorities.
I think the consensus at Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/11/Category:Ship's bells was for "ships'", and I would encourage the closing admin to close that discussion as well.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I should have read that article before linking it. The section you quote isn't referenced (at least, the reference given doesn't say anything to that effect). Sorry about that. All I mean is, imagine the word "ship" is being used as an adjective. For instance, there is no adjective in English meaning "of or relating to a ship or ships" (except maybe "nautical", but that is a little broader referring to seafaring in general). It's like "ship diagrams" or "shipyards" - you aren't talking about a specific ship or number of ships, you are using the noun "ship" as an attribute of the other noun. Some more examples of noun adjuncts would be:
Ships' propellers does sound OK in this instance - it sounds like a more likely possessive phrase on its own (more than "apples' cores", for example). But I favour Category:Ship propellers, because using "ship" attributively means you are definitely talking about no ship in particular (or all ships everywhere ever, depending on how you analyze it), whereas using "ships'" possessively suggests you might be talking about a specific group of ships, e.g. "the fleet moved forward by the ships' propellers" is fine, you're talking about those ships in the fleet. So "ships' propellers" for me leaves open the question "which ships?", because you would only need to say "ships'" if you wanted to specify a group. Of course, we do obviously mean "all ships ever" in naming the category, but it still sounds more awkward and imprecise to me. Neither of them is "wrong" in itself –⁠moogsi (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Men with glasses[edit]

For Discussion - I don't believe any named men should be under this category, only photos. For example Category:Jan Peter Balkenende, in the category are photos, signatures and audio clips. In the photos he has glasses, his signature has nothing to do with him and glasses, nor does an audio clip. What do others feel about subcategories being under this category? or, just the photos? Mjrmtg (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and anyway, people don't always wear them all their life or all the time. --Foroa (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Someone User:Pigsonthewing isn't happy with the decision to only categorize photos with Category:Men with glasses, he keeps reverting when I try to add Category:Men with glasses of photos of him with glasses, like File:Wiki Academy Kosovo 2013 Award ceremony 04.jpg, File:QSMM GLAM 3177.JPG, File:Herbert Backstage Pass cmglee 65.jpg. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not how categories work - and there's no need to flood watchlists. Andy Mabbett (me) *is* a "man with glasses". Not to mention that you're adding individual images of me - unusually - not wearing my glasses; and audio clips, to the category. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed the photos of you and the audio clips from the category. I mass added everything tried to remove the ones without glasses. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
No; you didn't. You removed some of them. Your edits are being disruptive. Stop it (but revert as requested on your talk page). Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, as I said, I missed removing Category:Men with glasses from some of your photos that do not have glasses in them. Your adding Category:Men with glasses to Category:Andy Mabbett is being disruptive. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there are two different concepts about the logic of categories. While some categories are thought to describe constants (i.e. attributes which won't change, like place of birth) other categories are thought to describe variables (i.e. attributes which can change, like men with glasses). Although I'd appreciate a more consistent approach on categorisation, current implementation shows that this is not the case at all. If you look at categories with Category:Politicians with moustaches you'll most likely find pictures which don't show politicians with moustaches. I think the current approach tries to represent characteristics rather than what you actually see on an image. Still this might be a valid reason to establish a set of categories identifying what you actually see (e.g. Images of people wearing glasses). Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons is a media server, and obviously, as can be seen in the subcategories, this category is reserved for portrait photos of men wearing glasses. Indeed, in Category:Men with sunglasses, the concept seems understood. Three quarters of the male population are wearing glasses from time to time, so categories of the people that wear glasses (from time to time) don't help for people that search for pictures of people wearing glasses. If people don't understand this simple concept, we'll have to rename the category indeed. --Foroa (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't wear glasses "from time to time". Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Come on, there are only 60 % of the images in Category:Andy Mabbett and virtually none of the 1100 images its subcategories that are relevant for this category. --Foroa (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts for a compromise creation of Category:Andy Mabbett with glasses populated only with images in which he is wearing glasses that is a subcategory of Category:Andy Mabbett and Category:Men with glasses.--KTo288 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please propose this, first, as a general policy for Commons categories. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In this category, "with" means that a man actually is with the glasses in the specific visual work, not that he merely owns glasses or occasionally wears them. If a man is always seen with glasses in all visual media, then maybe that man's name category should be in Category:Men with glasses for efficiency. But, if it's likely that there will be at least some publicly-accessable media of the man without glasses, then the two categories should be applied to each photo separately. If one searches all media in Category:Men with glasses and all of its subcategories, there should be no image of a man without glasses also in the image. An example of where the line is, in my opinion: Until 10 minutes ago, I would have said that Category:Harry Caray should be in Category:Men with glasses. Harry Caray was a sports announcer in the U.S., and eyeglasses were a prominent part of his identity. (You can do a Google Image Search for "Harry Caray" and you'll see.) I assumed that he had worn eyeglasses since an early age, and that I would never see a picture without them. But I did the image search and actually found one legitimate image of him without glasses: Here's Haray Caray without glasses, presumably in the 1940s at 1340 WCLS (now WJOL) in Joliet, Illinois. Whether he was required to take his glasses off for a professional photo at the time, or he just took them off normally at the time, I don't know. But, because of this photo, Category:Harry Caray shouldn't be in Category:Men with glasses, since there is at least one example of how Harry Caray might end up with a legitimate image without glasses on Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your assertions have no substance. Also, I don't wear glasses "occasionally". Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about you specifically (or at all, to be honest); I was talking about what people expect to see when they encounter "with" on Commons. "Men and glasses" would be a awkward. "Men wearing glasses" would make sense, but then you end up with people being pedantic about people holding glasses in their hands instead of on their head for a moment. (No need to inform me whether a specific person holds glasses in his or her hands "for a moment".) I do understand that it gets complicated when we're dealing with a category that has subcategories whose direct subjects are not the parent category's direct subject. Category:Theodore Roosevelt is a subcategory of Category:Politicians with moustaches, and Category:Theodore Roosevelt's taxidermy is a subcategory of Category:Theodore Roosevelt, yet the things in Category:Theodore Roosevelt's taxidermy do not have moustaches. (I think that could be solved with a couple of technical changes or tags, but it would get hairy and take a lot of time.) --Closeapple (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Multiverse (science fiction)[edit]

unnecessary layer of categorization. image can go in other categories, and is not truly a SF related image Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I created this category because category:Multiverse was categorised in category:Cosmology, which is for me related to science and not to science-fiction or fantasy. But as there is only a small amount of media in both categories, I agree to transfere the only picture from Category:Multiverse (science fiction) to category:Multiverse.
And, yes, the picture is related to SF. It is as neutral as possible to avoid infringement of intellectual property (the author died only a few years ago), but it is related to a ficitonal work.
Cdang (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Mmmm, after a good night of sleep, I get back to what I wrote: when science and fiction meet, I think it is better to separate them, so one can make the difference between what is considered as a serious hypothesis, and what is just a work of imagination.
Cdang (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Christian aediculae[edit]

Category:Wayside shrines, Category:Oratories, Category:Wayside chapels, Category:Christian aediculae are overlapping categories, but the denominations are not univoque. And Category:Devotion in Italy by city seems to concern mainly Category:Christian aediculae. I think the category-tree needs improvement. Suggestions for improvements? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Claude Audran II[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Claude II Audran Louperivois Ψ @ 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as a category redirect. --P 1 9 9   20:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hillsboro baseball stadium[edit]

Need to re-name it to match the now official name. New name should be Hillsboro Ballpark M.O. Stevens 18:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See the City's official page on the stadium for verification. M.O. Stevens 18:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:UK National Cycle Network National Route 5[edit]

This category is essentially a duplicate of Category:National Cycle Network route 5 (which it is in fact a subcategory of). It only had one file in it, File:Cycle track by petemh.jpg, which has been moved to the main NCR5 category. I'd suggest deleting this category. -- Schnee (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I created this category 1/2 year before Category:National Cycle Network route 5 was created. I'm ok with deleting "my" category. The new one has a more handy name. I probably wanted the category to include "UK" because many countries have national cycle networks. Nillerdk (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted as empty duplicate. --rimshottalk 19:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Emmelie de Forest bored[edit]

POV title. We cant have "X smiling", "Y crying", "P in red gown with chin on hand and winking towards the audience" as category names. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I created the category because I got many photos of her looking really bored. I understand that this kind of cattegory is unusual, but it is a hidden category. --/abbedabbtalk 08:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Support this nomination. Very subjective title, please delete. - FakirNL (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Are there any rules for hidden categories? abbedabbdisk 12:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as superfluous. --P 1 9 9   20:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sreesanth[edit]

This category should be moved to Category:S. Sreesanth which the publicly known full name of the person with the initials/surname. Rahul Bott (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Contents

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

Category:Grushauka (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Hrušaǔka (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


Deleted. INeverCry 00:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Akademiya Nauk (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Akademija navuk (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Borisovski Trakt (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Barysaŭski trakt (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:Institut Kultury (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Instytut kuĺtury (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


Deleted. INeverCry 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mihalova (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Michalova (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Moskovskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Maskoŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Oktyabrskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kastryčnickaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Park Cheluskintsev (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Park Čaliuskincaŭ (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ploschad Pobedy (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Pieramohi (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ploschad Yakuba Kolasa (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Jakuba Kolasa (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ploshad Lenina (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Lienina Kolasa (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Uruch'e (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Uručča (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Vostok (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Uschod (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Avtozavodskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Aŭtazavodskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Frunzenskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Frunzienskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kamennaya Gorka (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kamiennaja Horka (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kuncevshina (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kuncaŭščyna (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kupalovskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kupalaŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mogilyovskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Mahilioŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Molodezhnaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Maladziožnaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Nemiga (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Niamiha (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Partizanskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Partyzanskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pervomayskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Pieršamajskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Proletarskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Pralietarskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pushkinskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Puškinskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sportivnaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Spartyŭnaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Traktorny Zavod (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Traktarny zavod (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Janneken Pis[edit]

Empty category (due to COM:FOP#Belgium). 84.61.160.72 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


Symbol keep vote.svg Keep No reason for deletion: it will come back again and again. And the environment, plaques and de minimis pictures will ultimately arrive. --Foroa (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Could it be usefull to create a Category:subject to COM:FOP#Belgium) and to put redirects towards such a category from this and similar categories? --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Good idea about the category, but no redirects as image will come and go anyway, some will stay in the long run. --Foroa (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the category is also badly misspelled. It should be 'Jeanneke Pis'. Oreo Priest (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - category with an incorrect name and meant for copyrighted (FoP) images. JurgenNL (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and rename to correct name. The category now contains non-copyrighted pictures related to the sculpture. --Viktoria Kunst (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Architectural wiring diagrams[edit]

Is it a good category?, for plans like some from Category:Electrical_installations and thelike like File:Single-phase for 2-room apartments.JPG and File:Ex-wiring-plan.svg Also add to Specific diagram types. See also Category talk:Architectural wiring diagrams Sunspeanzler (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel[edit]

This category should be moved to Category:Vallabhbhai Patel as the latter name is without any honorifics and the subject is equally well known and uniquely identified by the shorter name too. Rahul Bott (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Women's erotica[edit]

Imho this category makes no sense and should be deleted Oursana (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree and is very subjective --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The apostrophe is in the wrong place too. ghouston (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)