Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/01

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 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Archive January 2010
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Lin Zexu 林則徐[edit]

Should just be Category:Lin Zexu. Spellcast (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


✓ Done -- User:Docu at 06:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Norm symbols[edit]

What are "norm symbols"? I have never heard of this terminology before and yet some of my images were moved into this category. I have a feeling that "norm" is actually an abbreviation for "normal", but I'm not sure. If it is, then the category should at least be renamed to "normal symbols" (although I'm still not sure what that means). If there is a better description for "norm symbols" I would much rather see this category moved to that better name. --Wizard191 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you show me my mistake; to clarify it: "Norm" is the German word for standard in the meaning or DIN, ISO, etc. DIN stands for Deutsche Industrie Norm, so we should change the category name to something like "Standard symbols". Would you agree with that? --WikipediaMaster (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Just so I understand you correctly, these are all "standard symbols" used on engineering drawings? If so I propose the category be renamed to Category:Engineering drawing symbols so that it is completely explicit. Wizard191 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Not only for engineering, also for manufacturing. So i.m.o. a better suggestion is: Category:Standard symbols, as they are standardised --Stunteltje (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Standard symbols is missleading. What exactly is supposed to be in the cat? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the misleading element. Symbols found in standards of standardising organisations, NEN, EEC, DIN, ISO and so on. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I also would say, category: Standard symbols or alternativly category:Standardized symbols would fit best and if needed, subcategories may be build later! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
How are manufacturing symbols different from engineering symbols? I believe they are the same seeing how manufacturing drawing are derived from engineering drawings. Wizard191 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it not be "Standards symbols"? ie symbols for different manufacturing/engineering etc. standards as set by these different organisations? That would also help with the confusion around the meaning "normal/general/standard" -- Deadstar (msg) 09:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that different people are trying to push for different things here. It appears that WikipediaMaster attempted to set up this category to be a parent category for standards that define symbols

Just the other way around: Symbols, defined by standards! WikipediaMaster (talk)
That's what I said "standards that define symbols". I think we are on the same page here. Wizard191 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(and it appears letters and some other stuff).

Thats what I found later, that there are also other symbols, defined by standards WikipediaMaster (talk)

However, there is also a hodge podge of other things lumped in, mostly being engineering drawing symbols.

Who uses the term "engineering drawing symbols"? Nobody! WikipediaMaster (talk)
Obviously I just did. And the point isn't whether the term is in vogue, but if it is descriptive. Wizard191 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As such, I propose that the current category be renamed Category:Symbol standards and then a separate category created called Category:Engineering drawing symbols and have all of the related files moved to this new category. Wizard191 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify what my original idea was. I wanted to have a category, where standardized symbols that are used in technical drawings can be found. Beside that, I found other standardized symbols, not used in technical drawings but for other purposes. category: Symbol standards would be the correct category for the Standard defining the Symbol The symbols itself would better fit in a category: Standardized symbols. For the technical drawings symbols we could also create a category:Symbols library. Why? Because thats a name also used in CAD systems today and thats why I would prefer that instead of Category:Engineering drawing symbols. --WikipediaMaster (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I like your argument for category: Symbol standards and category: Standardized symbols, but definitely disagree with category:Symbols library. "Symbols library" is very ambiguous; I'm an engineer and if I saw that category as an available option for categorizing engineering symbols I wouldn't know that that's the proper cat for me. I would think it's the parent cat for all symbols of any kind. If you don't like Category:Engineering drawing symbols how about the shortened Category:Engineering symbols? This would be a subcat of category:standardized symbols. I'm trying to work to a compromise here. Wizard191 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, lets start with category:Standardized symbols and we will see, which subcats are really needed then. First step, I replaced category:Norm symbols by the new cat now, because that makes for sure sense and puts away my own error! Additionally I have now created category:DIN symbols and category:ISO symbols, as this completes the work started! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing thread. Category was moved/deleted. -- User:Docu at 06:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Naked women with red hair[edit]

Proposal: Assorted categories for people described a "Naked" should be renamed to substitute the word "Nude" for "Naked".

Commons has a slew of categories for "naked" and for "nude" people, with the terms as far as I can tell used rather arbitrarily (eg, why Category:Naked women with red hair but Category:Nude women with long hair -- does length or color of hair have something to do with whether one is nude instead of naked?) As far as I can tell any lingistic distinction is not so drastic as to require seperate categories for "nude" and "naked". I therefore propose that all categories describing people as "naked" be renamed to describe them as "nude". I note that on en:Wikipedia "naked" redirects to "nudity". Examples Category:Naked young women, Category:Naked women in bed, Category:Naked men in heraldry, and similar. (For claity I should mention this proposal does NOT include things where the word "Naked" is actually part of the common name, eg Category:World Naked Bike Ride, Category:Naked Cowboy, Category:Romanian Naked-Neck Tumbler.) --Infrogmation (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Evrik (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
As no objections to the proposal have been offered, I shall start moving/renaming relevent categories as proposed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt[edit]

It's suggested to rename this to Category:Franklin D. Roosevelt, for consistency with the other subcategories of Category:Presidents of the United States (Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, etc.) and en:Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The current category name could obviously still redirect, this to make it easier for Non-English speaking user to find the category. Category descriptions can also mention the name of the maternal grandfather. -- -- User:Docu at 14:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the current name is just fine. Multichill (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Either "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" or "Franklin D. Roosevelt" are perfectly acceptable as he was and is commonly refered to by both terms. "Franklin D." has the advantages of matching en:W article (any archive of discussion how that title was settled on there?) and having fewer letters to type. On the other hand, a google search for the string in quotation marks shows 4,030,000 hits for "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" and 1,690,000 for "Franklin D. Roosevelt" indicating that the former is the more common construction by a wide margin. I don't think the potential advantages to renaming the category outweigh leaving it at the term that is more than 3 times as common. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This sounds like a reasonable approach, but I wonder if we shouldn't try to compare
      "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" -"Franklin D. Roosevelt"
      "Franklin D. Roosevelt" -"Franklin Delano Roosevelt"
      the second query yields more than twice the number of results as the first one. -- User:Docu at 00:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons, like many wikipedia's (see IW) avoids middle name initials. --Foroa (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you list any reference for this? Otherwise, you should present it as your personal opinion. -- User:Docu at 00:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The reason it doesn't match the others (I think) is because it's more common to say FDR's full middle name vs. those other presidents, which are almost always middle initial only. Many people don't even know what those letters stand for (like did you know Harry S. Truman's middle initial doesn't actually stand for anything?). We should go by what's most common. In this case, I don't know but I think I heard "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" slightly more in my lifetime. My Google tests show "Franklin D. Roosevelt" is the more popular form (2,650,000 vs. 1,130,000 hits) so we can't go by Google if it changes that drastically in a short time. Anyway, unnecessary work, IMO. Rocket000 (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed unnecessary work. Even in my area, I know several Franklin Roosevelt streets/squares/buildings, sometimes Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but never Franklin D. Roosevelt. Middlename abbreviations should be avoided: either full middlename or disambiguation. --Foroa (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be any consensus to change this. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Executive Departments of the United States[edit]

Rename Category:Department of State of the United States (talk) to Category:United States Department of State (326 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Department of Justice of the United States (talk) to Category:United States Department of Justice (120 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Officials of the Department of Justice of the United States to Category:Officials of the United States Department of Justice (9 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Department of Labor of the United States (talk) to Category:United States Department of Labor (45 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:U.S. Department of Labor appointees to Category:United States Department of Labor appointees (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:U.S. Department of Commerce (talk) to Category:United States Department of Commerce (61 entries moved, 0 to go)

I recommend the following category name changes so the category names reflect the correct name of the organizations (please see Wikipedia & the way these organizations spell out their names). As can be seen with Category:Executive Departments of the United States, most the cats already correctly reflect these organizations with “United States” in front of the organization. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Although this nomination is nearly a year old, it looks like no notice was ever given on the category page. I will add that and hope that produces some discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 08:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There has been discussions elsewhere: User_talk:Foroa/archive_2010#Cat_Changes_for_USG_orgs: the categories are named according to Commons conventions (topic of country) and for once, correspond with the wikipedia name too. On Commons, we have 3 times less category names (than on the en:wikipedia) that start with "United States. --Foroa (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree the commons convention is good to use, but not when there is an official name and the convention changes it. For example, the official name of the USMC is United States Marine Corps, so why should we make it Marine Corps of the United States when the convention changes the name away from it's official one. The naming convention should not change a name away from an official name. FieldMarine (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree such as for United States Marine Corps, but as you can see here, the departments have no United States prefix, this is rather a wikipedia naming convention. For translations from other languages, this is another debate because their "offcial" English names tend to be non official and for some strange reasons, most people want the name of the country in the beginning of the name. --Foroa (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with you that the U.S. departments do not use United States in their title. Please see these official logos here, here and here. Please see the official website for the U.S Department of Labor here, the U.S. Departmemt of State here, the U.S. Departmemt of Treasury here or the U.S. Department of Defense here. IMHO, these agencies use United States in their title. FieldMarine (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Some do, some don't. Please stick to ones that are discussed here. An overview of the seals in en:United States federal executive departments shows clearly which ones have the US prefix integrated in their name. --Foroa (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In looking just at a specific case, the United States Department of Labor, whose category had edits which removed "United States" from its name, should be Category:United States Department of Labor to reflect its proper name. Their website shows they use it here as well as the front page of their strategic plan here as well as their budget overview here or the sign in front of the building here. These websites, documents and files clearly show the proper name is United States Department of Labor. Thus, I recommend we change this category back to Category:United States Department of Labor to reflect the proper name. FieldMarine (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's all the time your interpretation. The abbreviation is DOL (on all their sites such as www.dol.gov), but for their external communication, they glue United States in front of them because there are hundreds of departments of Labor in the world. Look at their seals, logos and here, in the US, it is called "Department of Labor". Even in the laws] and here, there is only Department of Labor. --Foroa (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Precisely my point, as mentioned above DOL is an abbreviation of the official title of United States Department of Labor. In reference to the two laws posted above, the 2d page, 1st column on each CFR shows the name in the official address as United States Department of Labor. FieldMarine (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You clearly want to absolutely find United States in front of the name. I'll stop, but you can search here in the official US Government Manual. --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
My goal is to use the correct name for the category. So far, I'm not convienced it's properly named as it stands. That is why it is here for discussion to gain consensus. FieldMarine (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Personally I don't object to renaming some of these categories, for disambiguation. While, in retrospect, it might seem logical for all US Federal agencies should have been officially named the "United States Department of Xxxx". However, due to local parochialism, most or none of these agencies included "United States" in their official names. I believe other respondents here are correct that, due to inertia, and continued local parochialism, most of these agencies retain their original non-intenational official names.

    In all cases the text in the body of the actual category should spell out the actual official name, even when the official name is not disambiguous.

    As others have observed, when an agency already has a disambiguous name like the United States Marine Corps, the category should remain at that name. Geo Swan (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support moving all and redirecting: "United States Department of Justice" and "United States Department of Labor" are by far the most common unambiguous English-language names of these English-language subjects. Same for the U.S. Department of State (which is a bit awkward in any unambiguated form). Keep in mind that most U.S. states also have a "Department of Labor", so the issue of disambiguating this name in the United States has existed for decades before Commons. There are dozens of departments of labor in the United States, but only one "United States Department of Labor" (though that is sometimes also called "the federal Department of Labor"). And the United States Department of Justice also uses that long form of its own name; Americans also use it as the name. And the tendency over the last few decades has been to shift further towards using "United States" on the front of names, and away from "of the United States". "Department of Justice of the United States" or "Department of Labor of the United States" as a Commons name could only appropriate if two claims are true: (1) that somehow "United States" isn't a real name, despite a department, all of its subdivisions, and native speakers using it constantly, even in official correspondence; then (2) a Commons convention for disambiguation (designed for cases when an entity has no standard English title) is more important than the standard that the English language itself already uses (e.g. for U.S. federal departments). Example for the USDOJ:
    • http://www.justice.gov/ says "United States Department of Justice" with the page title "Welcome to the United States Department of Justice", then uses "Department of Justice" afterwards.
    • Google hits: about 2,170,000 results for "United States Department of Justice"; about About 951,000 results for "Department of Justice of the United States".
    • Google hits for abbreviations: about 29,800,000 results for "DOJ" (which may have multiple meanings); About 1,730,000 results for "USDOJ"; about 45,700 results for "DOJUS" (Department of Justice isn't even in the top 100 results); about 395 results for "DOJOTUS" (Department of Justice isn't even in the top 100 results)
--Closeapple (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Renamed, consensus appears to favor aligning the categories under one naming schema. Discussion has not changed since late 2011 after beginning in early 2010. Blurpeace 18:23, 5 July 2012 (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:Węgrzce (wojwództwo małopolskie)[edit]

badname --Luxetowiec (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 16:35, 8 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:Vitina/Viti[edit]

real category is Vitina. This one is empty --Tadija (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Deleted. Empty category. — Dferg (disputatio) 14:05, 8 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:Kačanik/Kaçanik[edit]

Real category at Kačanik --Tadija (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 07:07, 9 February 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.

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

Category:Big Red (B-17)[edit]

This category is empty. The page en:Big Red B-17 was deleted in june-2009 after debate --Tangopaso (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Closing thread: The two images that were used in that article were deleted here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Big_Red_B-17_Photo.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Red Crew.jpg. As there aren't any images left to categorize, I added {{speedy}} to the category. -- User:Docu at 07:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Túrelio: empty (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Big Red (B-17))

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:Hydravion[edit]

Category name in french, redundant with Category:Seaplanes. --Duch.seb (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule on Wikicommons prohibiting French categories.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Category was converted to redirect. -- User:Docu at 06:47, 11 February 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:Childish drawings by adults[edit]

How can you ever define that category correctly?

  • Seems useless to me, I'd favor deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, as such a category may also attract out-of-scope personal drawings. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.Tryphon 08:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Soccer[edit]

The Category:Soccer is currently redirected (twice) to Category:Association football. Surely there is room on the commons for images of soccer games that are not played at a professional level? The image that brought this to my attention is File:Compliant captives are allowed to play soccer in Guantanamo.jpg. Until this is sorted out I am going to leave it in Category:Sports. Geo Swan (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The problem is with the name football itself. Sure we could have an amateur football category, but the Americans would assume it means their kind. This doesn't need a cfd, somebody just needs to think up a sensible name for an amateur football category. Heck, you could break the naming convention and call it amateur soccer, at least nobody would mistake it. -Nard the Bard 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Might it be practical to use the term "soccer" for subcategories relevent to countries where the game is called "Soccer", eg something like "Soccer games in the United States"? Infrogmation (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Soccer and association football are the same thing. They shouldn't be used to distinguish professional vs amateur or whatever. I suggest leaving it as it is and closing this discussion, since it's inactive anyway. ghouston (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Closed as per my suggestion. ghouston (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:Preserved LMS Princess Royal Class[edit]

Request category be deleted. There are only two preserved locomotives (both of which now have a category of their own) out of a class of twelve. An extra layer of Preserved/Historical is over-categorisation and redundant. --Iain Bell (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Both preserved locomotives can (an do) have their category directly in Category:Preserved London, Midland and Scottish Railway steam locomotives. I would answer you query by turning it on its head – how many survivors does a class need before a “Preserved class” category is needed? Iain Bell (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Which hat am I wearing? If I'm pragmatically adding cats by hand, then I wouldn't bother for two (but neither would I delete it if it did exist). OTOH, if I'm wibbling about lightweight semantics in wikis, DBpedia etc. then I would have the cat whenever it was meaningful (i.e. one or more) because then the set of cats that exists then indicates the set of cats that were preserved. I can use query tools to generate neatly presented lists, nav trees etc. To be honest, a decent implementation with SPARQL-like tools (i.e. using DBpedia rather than DPL) then I'd assume I needed to check for joint membership of the image being in a recognisable class and also in a child cat of "preserved" to do a competent query, so it doesn't really matter anyway - with or without the cat, I'd get the answer.
Mostly though, I'd leave it alone. I'd neither create nor delete, unless there was a strong reason. 2 isn't enough to create, but neither to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Closing old discussion, there was no agreement to delete. It's no worse than other categories in Category:Preserved London, Midland and Scottish Railway steam locomotives. ghouston (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sounds by country[edit]

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

(Moved from an other page and from Category talk:Sound by country. --ŠJů (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker request: Sounds/Sound

Rename Category:Sounds of Austria to Category:Sound from Austria (0 entries moved, 5 to go)
Rename Category:Sounds of Cape Verde to Category:Sound from Cape Verde (0 entries moved, 3 to go)
Rename Category:Sounds of France to Category:Sound from France (0 entries moved, 7 to go)
Rename Category:Sounds of Germany to Category:Sound from Germany (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Sounds of Italy to Category:Sound from Italy (0 entries moved, 19 to go)
Rename Category:Sounds of Japan to Category:Sound from Japan (0 entries moved, 20 to go)

Regarding your request to move category "Sounds of Japan" to "Sound from Japan" etc. on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands - This is not an uncontroversial move as in my eyes, you're going from plural to singular & that's against what the norm would be on Commons. Can you open a {{move}} request for that please? I don't think it'll get processed at all otherwise. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, discussion is possible, but unification is necessary. I'm transfering to Category talk:Sound by country Mircea (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be moved the other way - ie from Category:Sound by country to Category:Sounds by country as they are different types of sound. The second category already exists, so this is more of a merge than a move request in that case. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That's complication, because Category:Sounds by country is category about geographical objects "" now. Mircea (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Haha - didn't even see that! OK, now that is a complication. So, there is Category:Sound from the United States, probably to distinguish it from Category:Sounds of the United States. To me, it feels wrong to go from the plural to the singular, but to have the distinction made by "of/from" is also confusing (ie to have Category:Sounds from the United States). More ideas are needed. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe we should just go with your initial request (I just needed it explained to me - it definitely makes more sense in the context of Category:Sound) -- Deadstar (msg) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The Category:Sound by country is comparable with Category:Videos by country. But therefore that there is no confusion with Category:Sounds by country (geography), it is better to work with Category:Audio files by country. --R. Engelhardt (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Something without discussion and something is for discussion:
Sound[s] (Audio files) from "country"
  • without discussion: Audio files from - little "f" in word "files" and "from" instead of "of"
  • for discussion: pluralxsingular for Sound[s] (audio)
it's not complete... Mircea (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

[reset identation] Are you saying that you propose something like "Sound (Audio files) from Country X"? I believe the "Sound" part could be left aside and then we wouldn't have to deal with the singular/plural issue. So, I think the best would be "Audio files from Country X" (which seems to be the dominating option right now). --Waldir talk 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, something along the lines of Audio by country would be unambiguous. Man vyi (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm also happy with that. Please also have a look at Category:Audio files by country: I think we need a clear description of what the difference would be between Category:Audio by country and Category:Audio files by country. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Difference? I thought he proposed the usage of "Audio by country" instead of "Audio files by country". Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Waldir talk 12:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought he meant to say to move "Sounds by country" to something like "Audio by country". Anyway - my point was that the category Category:Sounds of Japan was defined that it should have the sounds of the country (a tram rattling by, vendors on the corner, temple bells etc.) and I think that "Audio files by country" is more about music/book readings/radio recordings etc. from a specific country? If we merge the two, that distinction will be lost. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, since the Sound categories are problematic, it looks like Audio is a workable solution. So should we have Audio of Japan/Audio files of Japan in Audio by country/Audio files by country? And Audio by language/Audio files by language? If we had an overarching Audio by country then a seemingly inevitable Recording studios by country would presumably also fit in there? And from a multilingual point of view Audio by country is simpler for those less comfortable with English language than Audio files..., I'd have said. Man vyi (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

<undent>As all uploads are obviously "files", is there a way to eliminate that from the naming?

Please also note that I've just looked at the files in the categories, I haven't listened to them & it could be some work to straighten them into a new structure. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Closed, used for sound beaches/coasts/landofrms now. --Foroa (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:Royal titles[edit]

Not all Monarchs are Royals and after remove of Category:Monarchs from the Category:Royal titles, Category:Royal titles will be empty. A see also to Category:Monarchs are on the category page already. --Diwas (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I suggest to delete the category page Category:Royal titles --Diwas (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't really oppose - I guess we can still have Category:Titles of nobility at some point. Ingolfson (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think nobility is better defined than royalty. (Another way were to describe and define royal titles exactly in the category-description and categorize exacly the titles to Category:Royal titles that matching that description.) --Diwas (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You thing about this?

Nobility
Nobility by country
Nobility of ...
Titles of nobility
Countesses
Queens
Counts
Kings
Pashas
...
Nobel women
Countesses
Queens
...
Nobel men
Counts
Kings
Pashas
...
Paintings of nobility
Noble courts
...

I am not sure if Category:Monarchs should be categorized in a Category:Titles of nobility. --Diwas (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


May as well delete it, as per comments. ghouston (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:History of the Czech Republic and some of subcategories[edit]

Unlike other countries which are specified by timeless or long-life geographical name, the Czech Republic is called by the official name of the current state corporation and regime which has a short history (since 1969 in the framework of the Czechoslovak federation, since 1993 as an independent state). Modern photographies can be categorized as "from the Czech Republic" but in case of special categories of historical themes and periods, this name sounds absurdly.

There are names of separate Czech lands (Bohemia, Moravia, Czech Silesia) but no short name of the whole Czech country is fully established. The historical name of Czech Kingdom area is Czech Lands (it involved Bohemia, Moravia and in some periods parts of Silesia and both Lusatias). In the modern period (before 1918 and during the early Czechoslovakia), Czech lands can be perceived as Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Silesia, but this name has historic connotations. The modern short names ("Česko" in Czech, "Czechia" in English) aren't fully and widely accepted yet (see the article Name of the Czech Republic).

We should find some acceptable treatment. We should choose from names "Czechia", "Czech Lands", "Czech lands" (Czechland, Czechlands) and "the Czech Republic" and to take a decision whether just one name will be used in all cases or one name in modern context and second one in historical context. Some content should be categorized into subcategories by the historical land (in Bohemia, in Moravia).

I am suggesting to use "in Czechia" generally (and to replace "in the Czech Republic" with it) or (if would the first proposal impassable) to use "in Czechia" or "in Czech lands" only in historical context and to keep "in the Czech Republic" in modern context. --ŠJů (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(Discussion in Czech had begun at my talk page before this Cfd.)

I agree to this proposal and I would prefer "in Czechia" as well --anro (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose to this proposal. There is not our fault that our country have its current state form in its name generally used on en: or Commons. We can percieve the word Republic here as a integral part of country's name with no special connotation of its government form. It is an equally valid and good name as Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, France or United States. Czech Republic is here merely a geographic designation we shoul use for media regarding present territory of the Czech Republic through its whole history. This is the same as Poland, Austria, Germany etc. is used for categories like Country in the XX century. Czech lands encompasses some territories (Silesia, Lusatia) which are covered under Poland or Germany, therefore it is unsuitable for division of topics along current state boundaries. For example we can list depictions of (nowadays Polish) town of Kłodzko under Category:Kingdom of Bohemia (1627-1740) because the town was part of Bohemia at that time but we shall not list it under Category:1648 in the Czech Republic (btw any perception of anachronism or oddity is gone when you imagine Czechia or Poland or Spain in the category name instead of the Czech Republic). I do not object the word Czechia in my everyday life outside Wikiedia but we use Czech Republic when referring our state and its territory almost universally here and on en:. So for overall simplicity we should use Czech Republic even for Coats of arms, Flags, Centuries, Decades and Years because they are related to present day territory, not to the territory valid at some more or less distant point of history. There are some templates giving an overview of various country/time-related topics and usage of both Czechia and Czech Republic in one place would be quite confusing (not sure whether this two name option can be easily incorporated in such templates at all). Czech Republic does not affect some categories used primarily for sake of historical periodization where historical territorial extent is the primary interest (e.g. Category:Czech lands under Habsburg Dynasty, Category:Margraviate of Moravia (1526-1628)). --Miaow Miaow (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I also agree to the proposal and strongly prefer the one-word, politically neutral form "Czechia". --Petrus Adamus (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In the abstract I like "Czechia", but the fact is that it has no currency at all among native English speakers. I'd be interested in seeing a different way out of this. Possibly "Czech lands"? - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Related categories:


The truth and reality is, that there no Czech Republic existet before 1918. Until the creation of this, the official and only name since hundred of years was Kingdom of Bohemia. If the czech nationalists cannot live with this historical fact, so for for heaven's sake the name Czechia should be used. -- Steinbeisser (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
See related discussion Commons_talk:Categories#Category:Thirteen_Colonies_in_the_1700s.2C_etc. --Foroa (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No Czech Republic existed before 1969 when Czechoslovakia was federalized. But Czech (non-republic) statehood and country has medieval history. The reason why "Czech Republic" is used instead of "Czechia" is not a Czech nationalism but the fact that there exist no widespread supertemporal name for Czech lands. The word "Czechia" is too rare and hence a bit controversial word, the term "Czech lands" is archaic and outlived (btw. Kingdom of Bohemia was only one of several Czech lands, i. e. of Lands of the Bohemian Crown), the term "Czech Republic" has its correct meaning only for the time since 1969 or even 1993. But as apparently, most of Czech as well as non-Czech users would support to use "Czechia" generally.
Btw, Category:United States in the 17th century is not problematic? There were no United States of America before 1776. --ŠJů (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
(See also this and this, a similar problem, with Rhineland-Palatinate). --ŠJů (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You have right - even Category:United States in the 17th century as the "Rhineland-Palatinate in the 1920" is incorrect because at this time these countries didn't exist as such. I'm waiting for the next category will be established as "The Czech Republic during the time of the Dinosaur" or similiar. (Oh Lord, please help if you can - probably even he cannot in that special case!) - Steinbeisser (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Categorization of history by the area of today's states can have any sense, especially regarding surviving architecture etc. However, categorization of mediavel or 19th century events by "Republic" looks very peculiarly. The problem is that "Czech lands" (Czechia) has very various extent in varous times. I think, as many historical content as possible should be categorized by historical lands ("Bohemia in the 1580s", "1645 in Moravia" etc. Categorization of the history of Lusatia and Silesia in relation to eventual "Czech lands" category should be discussed. The words Czech Republic should not appear before 1969, just as Czechoslovak categories don't exist for years before 1918 and past 1992. --ŠJů (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not fussed whether we use Czechia or Czech Republic (I lean slightly towards the latter, however), as log as the categories continue to pertain strictly to the lands which today constitute the Czech Republic. One should not require an in-depth knowledge of Czech history to use the categories, with proper categorization dependent on knowing what historic kingdoms and states existed when, and where the boundaries lay at any givem point in history. On that point, I agree with Miaow Miaow.Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
It would help if the categories had descriptions, e.g., Category:Czech Republic in the 14th century is presumably media that relates to the the geographical area of the current Czech Republic. Such categories seem well-defined and are probably useful (assuming that the current boundaries don't change often, and there aren't more useful geographical areas that could be used) and they can be used in addition to categories for historical kingdoms etc. ghouston (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
However at present there's no indication that Category:History of the Czech Republic was intended to be geographic, rather it includes everything related to the "Czech states" or "Czech lands", so there's no reason to expect the dated subcategories to be geographic either. It seems reasonable to have a separate category for each of the historic states, which have any significant Czech component, where the current Czech Republic also has its own category. They could then be grouped into a broader Czech states category. Then geographically-based categories could be based on the territory of the current republic, or on entities like Bohemia or Moravia as ŠJů said above. ghouston (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No consensus for a change. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)