User talk:Joshbaumgartner

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2006-2016 archive, 2017-2018 archive, 2019 archive

Notable CfD[edit]

Category:Spaceplanes of the Soviet Union and Russia[edit]

Should be split into Category:Spaceplanes of the Soviet Union and Category:Spaceplanes of Russia Josh (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

And both would go in Category:Spacecraft of the Soviet Union and Russia ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Nearly all of the 'Soviet Union and Russia' categories should be split likewise. The Soviet Union and Russia are separate and distinct entities. Josh (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:A-4A Skyhawk (flat list)[edit]

In discussion with Cobatfor (talk · contribs) it became clear there is desire for a category which can display all media of an aircraft type without having to wade through sub-categories which may have only a few images each. This is particularly true with aircraft registrations as they can often have only one or two images for a particular aircraft, but their creation and structure is established practice for aircraft. Having a flat list category with all media of the aircraft regardless of categorization offers a possible solution. Leaving them in the parent category does not work because it is a COM:OVERCAT violation and a well meaning soul will come by and fix that, sorting them back into their sub-cats (or at least removing the extra listing). Does a flat list category work? If we use it, what should it be named? Category:A-4A Skyhawk (flat list) has been created as an example/test of this approach, name and sorting can be refined. Josh (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Superb idea! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
It just came to my mind that there could also just be a category "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (flat list)", as every aircraft only has one registration number. The exception in all U.S. Navy aircaft are (as far as I know) only a few AV-8B Harriers which received a new BuNo after a modernization. Cobatfor (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cobatfor: Your responses above were only on my talk page, but looked like they belonged here, so I copied them over. I wanted to keep it limited for the example category, so that is why I stuck to 'A-4A' instead of the whole 'A-4' category. Of course, you are correct, this could be done at whatever level makes sense for the number of media involved. Josh (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
"Flat list" is usually for a list of categories without images, and you've done the reverse. Wouldn't a gallery at A-4a Skyhawk work better for this purpose? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Yeah, I was at a loss for the right words, and as I said, some other wording may be more appropriate. As for a gallery, it does not serve the purpose really, as they are for showing a curated selection of images, not all images of a subject. Josh (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess "(all images)" would be more appropriate in terms of wording. I'm not saying I think this is a good idea though. I certainly wouldn't want to see it for all types of planes. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cobatfor: Do you have any objection to Themightquill's suggestion? If not, I suggest this be closed with consensus to permit an (all images) index category when appropriate, but to use this practice sparingly. Josh (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Happy New Year, by the way :-). I am a little at loss. What exactly is now planned? Thank you. Cobatfor (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Cheers and thank you! I'm not sure that I plan on doing anything in particular, but in cases where you think a grouping of all images is appropriate, you can create say, Category:Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (all images) and add any image depicting an A-4 to that category. Leave them in their existing categorized structure (by registration, etc.). Does this work to meet your concerns? `Josh (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I hope I understand that proposal. I would not think that Category:Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (all images) would be appropriate, as then we have hundereds of images in one category. For example, the U.S. Navy bot-uploads filled the categories of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with thousands of photos. I still don't understand, why aircraft registration categories cannot be exempted from the redundancy rule, as it is seldom the case that you have more than one photo of an aircraft.Cobatfor (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that is what you were suggesting when you said "It just came to my mind that there could also just be a category "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (flat list)"..." It sounds like we are on the verge of making the perfect the enemy of the good here. You can say it is an exemption all you like but that still won't stop well-meaning editors from undoing your work trying to fix what would commonly be seen as an overcat violation, unaware of the special case, unless you are going to add special headers to all of the thousands upon thousands of affected categories to explain the situation, which I don't think is a workable or good idea. Special exemptions complicate everyone's work as it is one more thing to trip over in the normal course of editing. Josh (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I hope, I got that right (as a non-English-native speaker): You propose to put all (for example) Douglas A-4 Skyhawk photos in one mega-category and piecemeal the category on the other hand into 2960 single BuNo categories? I still think either is not useful. One category is too big, the other is too small. If you think that you have to press every aircaft photo into a zillions of single registration categories, that may be then. I would think it is more of a task to categorize the USN categories that were blown up with thousands of photos by bot-uploads. Automatic categorization led to the state that we have now, that thousands of photos ate in categories just because the word is somewhere in the description. As to the aircraft registration issue, if I got your idea right, I sadly cannot support it. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cobatfor: Sorry, you lost me. I'm not making a proposal to create any particular category. The one I used as an example was one you said would be one you might want. But if now you don't want it, forget I mentioned it. As for an aircraft registration issue, I have no idea what issue you are referring to or what it is you are not supporting, since I don't see anyone suggesting changing the rules about aircraft registrations. Could you please clarify, 1) Would being able to use a category such as Category:A-4A Skyhawk (all images) address your concerns? 2) If not, do you have an alternate proposal to address the problems you have with existing practices? Josh (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: Sorry, I really lost you. I thought you would propose a category "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (all images). I am definitely okay with Category:A-4A Skyhawk (all images), Category:A-4B Skyhawk (all images) etc. The other proposal I had was that we would create a separate category "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk by registration" only for BuNo categories without differing by model and leave the model categories as they are. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cobatfor: No problem, I understand the confusion. We already have 'by registration' categories (e.g. Category:Boeing 747-400 by registration) but those do not remove the registration category from the sub-model (e.g. Category:Boeing 747-400ER). Category:VH-OEE (aircraft) is under both Category:Boeing 747-400 by registration and Category:Boeing 747-400ER. If you remove it from the Category:Boeing 747-400ER, someone will just add it back to that category (since that is what it is), so I don't think that will solve the problem. You are certainly welcome to create 'by registration' categories where they don't exist, but I don't think removing such categories from their existing place is going to go over well. I think for now we ought to just say add an '(all images)' category for aircraft at the level that makes sense: I agree with you that is probably the variant level for the A-4 (e.g. Category:A-4A Skyhawk (all images)). Any big change to how we do aircraft registration categories probably needs to be discussed at the Category:Aircraft by registration level, and is outside the scope of this CfD. Thanks! Josh (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Northern France[edit]

This category name implies that it's about an area of France, but it is categorized under statues. It contains one subcat, Category:Unidentified locations in Northern France, and some files showing statues. The subcat would fit in a category with this name, but the files should be in more-specific categories. Proposed resolution:

  • Remove files from this cat.
  • Recategorize the contents of the subcat, possibly creating a new category for them called "Unidentified locations in France by region".
  • Delete this cat and its subcat

Note: Similar issues exist for Category:Southern France, but I will be making a separate CFD for that. Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete There is no official definition of "Northern France", so everybody can include whatever he deems suitable. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete agreed with Uli. Josh (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Similarly to Southern France, an useful global/maintenance category when one feels uncertain or lazy. There is an important divide between North and South in France, geographically and culturally, so these categories are relevant. The frontier is traditonally considered to be the Loire. Please refer to Southern France on Wikipedia. Nothing on Northern France though, I suppose it's because the North is less popular than the sunny South ;) - Olybrius (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
"Useful when one feels uncertain or lazy" is not a reason to keep categories. Wikipedia may have an article on Southern France, but they don't categorize things under it. If we keep these categories, are we expected to fully populate them? Between administrative regions and departments, not to mention the areas under Category:Super-regional entities of France, I think we have enough categories for areas of France. If there is nothing that relates to the area as a whole (as opposed to relating separately to its subdivisions), it's not meaningful to have the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Supposed chemtrails in Slovenia[edit]

Sorry, but even with a "supposed" adjective in the title, this category is totally out of the scope of Commons. How are we to recognise a supposed chemtrail? Supposed by whom, with what kind of evidence? These are just contrails. Commons is not the place to have people build up their conspiracy theories. Ariadacapo (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I (as creator of the category) understand you totally. So, my intention is to collect - or better said - to separate images with ordinary (in common sense of a meaning) contrails, which usually last for about 20 seconds or something, and extraordinary contrails, which last for hours and which in some way essentially differ from ordinary ones. Maybe it's just the name of the category that should be more adequate, for example: Long-lasting contrails ... that means some name, that would make a distinction, as we know for example cloud types. --Janezdrilc (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
II World War contrails.jpg
There's nothing extraordinary about longer-lasting contrails. Their persistence depends on many atmospheric factors, so there's nothing inherently special about them do merit extra categorization (see en:Contrail). And even if we did this, which time limit would you set for "ordinary" ones, why exactly such limit and how would you reliably distinguish "extraordinary" contrails from a photo? — Yerpo Eh? 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It's reasonable to have Category:Chemtrail conspiracy theory, but it's not reasonable to categorize all contrails a second time according to what some people think is a conspiracy. Janezdrilc, even if we accepted your separate definition (and to be clear, I don't think it's useful), there's no reasonable way to categorize a photo of a contrail by how long it lasted. We certainly wouldn't want an hour of video footage of a contrail either. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There is not a generally accepted definition of 'ordinary' vs. 'extraordinary' contrails, so it is not reasonable for us to categorize on that basis. It is reasonable to categorize 'chemtrails' seperately from 'contrails' in cases where it there is evidence to support that it is not a mere aerodynamic/atmospheric effect of a passing plane, but actually a deposited trail of some sort of chemical, such as Category:Aerial application. However, contrail duration is not sufficient evidence of this. In any case, unless there is some sort of visual distinction between short and long-lasting contrails, it is not reasonable to categorize photos by duration. If we do have video of contrails, then I suppose caterizing media by duration would be fine, but not under the guise of being 'chemtrails'. Simply categorize by what we know (duration), and leave the speculation to the viewer. This category should be removed and redirected to Category:Contrails in Slovenia. Josh (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing discussion : Category was redirected to Category:Contrails in Slovenia. Pierre cb (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ships by name (flat list)[edit]

System-search.svgSee also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Ships by name.

It seems some people don't like this category. It was meant as a solution to find a compromise between those who agreed there should be a flat category listing all ships by name, but weren't sure how to square that with Category:Ships by name by type. Some wanted the latter deleted completely. Some wanted it as a parallel category to Category:Ships by name. Some, apparently, wanted to ignore COM:OVERCAT and include ships both in the flat list and in the sub-categories. I think Category:Ships by name (flat list) solves this whole debate nicely, and allows the categories to nest naturally. I'd be happy to hear of other potential solutions. Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that Category:Ships by name by type has since been removed both from Category:Ships by name and Category:Ships by type. Category:Ships without name which also fit pretty well under Category:Ships by name has also been removed. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think a category containing each named ship individually is needed. If you know a ship's name but nothing else about it, this category lets you look for it by name. If you want an image of a ship with a certain name, but it doesn't matter which one, you can find one in this category. Well, at least it would if the sorting were worked out better. I don't really care what the name of the category is, if that's the issue, but I think a category should exist with this content. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
For me the old Category:Ships by name was good enough. Short and gave sufficient possibilities for other categories. I did not protest at the renaming other than asking why, because Category:Ships by name (flat list) is the only category with "(flat list)" in Category:Categories by name (flat list). I did not see the advantage. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I acknowledge that it might be the only "by name (flat list)" category, but there also aren't a lot of "by name" categories which are actually flat. (Yes, there are some and they require ongoing maintenance to keep them flat, and/or weird workarounds like Category:People categories by name). Category:Ships by name invites sub-categorization, whether you want it or not. In most all other category trees Category:X by Y by Z is a subcategory of Category:X by Y and usually by Category:X by Z. The first few examples that came up in a search, just looking at those involving "name" - it's even more common in other intersections:
Conversely, there's no indication that most or all sub-categories that end with "by name" are flat-categories. From my perspective, if you want a flat category to remain flat without having to fight for consensus whenever anyone wants to sub-categorize, add "(flat list)" to the category name. No more need for debate and maintenance, and no harm done. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I note we're still active at the Village Pump on this question: discussion September 18.

Hopefully we can keep this simple. In essence I agree with Stunteltje on this topic.

I think we may all agree that the simplest most direct method is the best way. The directory tree should be as flat as possible. Ideally all main cats should lie directly under Ships. A main cat should be as short and as simple a name as possible, that why I prefer "Ships by name" to "Ships by name ((flat list)". "Ships by type" should be directly under "Ships", as a parallel category to Category:Ships by name. "Ships by name has instructions at the top of it telling you that it is a place for ship name categories only. Calling it "Ships by name ((flat list)" does not resolve dumping other stuff in there. Adding "(flat list)" to the category name, doesn't take the place of the instructions. All cats invite sub-categorization, especially for people who don't read instructions. Your right every cat needs to be curated, because part timers continually dump stuff where it shouldn't be, either through ignorance, laziness or more likely confusion; and confusion come about through over nesting, and over long cat names.

When Commons was born a directory tree was created by people interested in "filing" as a subject and by people interested in "boats and barges" as opposed to ships. That greatly influenced subsequent development. The "ship" community" has a very different view on a whole raft of detail. I.E. ships are launched, barges and boats are built, is just one example. At the start it was not envisaged, how big the project would become, even shipping as a subject is larger than we ever dreamt. The cat structure was designed accordingly, and designed for people that did not know how to interrogate a database using sophisticated search queries.

Consequently we have choked many branches within commons with over nesting of cats and over diffusion of images. The latter has been discussed recently elsewhere and over diffusion by date was found to be not popular by consensus. Simply, because, even when looking at 200 files in once place it's obvious what dates belong to what image, and filing by year tends to hide files away, and make them inaccessible. Over-catting leads to an unacceptable maintenance overhead.

What is clear to me, is that if you want to find a ship, people use Wikipedia as a map. It's in Wikipedia that ship types and ship names are identified, that means in effect that all our type cats are effectively redundant. An enquirer then come to commons and looks for ships by name, that is if you don't know how to use deepcat or Petscan. Even if you want images tied to a certain year (and your eye is not enough) then it's best to use petscan or type in a specific year as a search keyword to narrow the results. However date finding is not too clever in Commons, as the largest number of errors here are the dates attached to images, far greater than spelling errors.

Commons doesn't lend itself to disambiguation as efficiently and clearly as Wikipedia. We should be geared towards not filing as an end in itself, but as a repository of images for our major client, exemplified by Wikipedia. COM:OVERCAT has nothing to do with putting ships in both the flat list and in sub-categories (I'm presuming you meant ships by type) that's perfectly acceptable, though a waste of time IMO.

Autofun6 has a point, but of course we're not supposed to raise a cat for a single image, but what we can do, is put an image in cats like "Ships named Neptune" or similar. All this work just for people who cant do basic search! It's not all wasted effort though as many images have insufficient text descriptions that on occasion don't include the name of the ship, and / or miss out on the term ship, and call the vessel what it is, yacht, barge, steamer. But that of course takes me back to the inherent flaws that still exist, through creation of the tree by bargemen as opposed to ship boys.

Don't get me wrong, this is a living organism that will perpetually change (and more importantly is not broken), I just pray that we keep it simple and solve it by taking out unnecessary levels and cats, rather than adding new ones. Remember those four cats doing the same job: "Categories by ship name", "Ships by type"; "Ships by function"! and "Ships by name by type‎" as an example. "Ships by name (flat list)" is just another needless, and a log on the fire. Respectfully. Broichmore (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note that, as far as I can see, there is only one other "by name by type" category on commons, Category:Aircraft by name by type, and it's in Category:Aircraft by name. Category:Aircraft by name is heavily sub-categorized.
While searching for the above, I accidentally also found that Category:Ships by name by type was already subject to a discussion back in 2011. It was ultimately decided that it should go in Category:Ships by name, as following standard practice for other intersecting categories on commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
So what is category Category:Ship names for then? Broichmore (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
To group together those sub-categories that were in it previously (Category:Ships by name by type and Category:Ships without name) as well as Category:Ships by name (flat list) and any other sub-categorizations that might get created in the future -- there's nothing to stop someone from creating Category:Ships of the United Kingdom by name, for instance. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Ships of the United Kingdom does that already, and there are already several sub-cats covering that too. Despite all that you've said, and not read, you still have no good reason for your modifications to "Ships by name", please change it back to how it was. Dump those cats you didn't like (that were in it, polluting it, to your annoyance) into Category:Ship names. Again, our problem is over nesting and adding cats and levels to that is not helping that. Not happy with one cat and an extra level you now want to double it, with another. Regards - Broichmore (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
If Category:Ships of the United Kingdom by name would be redundant with Category:Ships of the United Kingdom, then wouldn't Category:Ships by name be redundant with Category:Ships? That's not how commons works. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll do you a bargain, You can throw all the main "name" cats into Category:Ship names (I'll even do it for you), if you reinstate Category:Ships by name and get rid of Category:Ships by name (flat list). Broichmore (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Under that scheme, what goes in Category:Ships by name? It's redundant with Category:Ship names? I'm not sure I'm convinced anyway, as these are categories for the ships but organized by name, not categories for their names. What about we get rid of Category:Ship names and redirect it to Category:Ships by name (flat list)? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This an important issue, and deserves much thought. I'm going to be doing intensive travelling over the next two weeks, so I beg you to put this on hold. I will think about it over the period and come back with a way forward, that hopefully you will find agreeable. Key points have to be minimal nesting of categories, and preserving ships from the the over categorisation and diffusion that is such a blight on other projects. While there are unlimited numbers of ship images there are relatively few as a rule per ship. You may have already solved the issue, notice that in Category:Ships by name you have already put in the "header", a set of "instructions required" to keep it a "flat list", perhaps we just need to point out in there, that images that have no home I.E. "unidentified ships" or are single ship images should be in "Ships named after Foo" or better still "ships named Foo"? In the end we may all have to put up with a certain amount of image dumping into and consequent curation of major cats such as this. -Broichmore (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As of today things look OK to me. First we have Category:Ships, inside it "Ship Names" and "Ships by name‎", then inside "Ship names" are various name titles and again "Ships by name". There is no need for adding another tier of "Ships by name (flat list)". the current contents of which should be returned to "Ships by name". "Ships by name" is the only category in "Ships" of any real importance. As such it deserves its name to be as short as possible. It is the only mandatory category where a ship folder should reside. There are many other categories in "Ships" that an individual ship can belong to. These other categories are problematic. They will never be complete. Are difficult to maintain (curate). Some are poorly defined. They are redundant in large part by Wikipedia being effectively an index of shipping titles (a map of Commons ship content) and Commons being an extended library shelf (databank). Please return the contents of "Ships by name (flat list)" to where it belongs "Ships by name". Thank you --Broichmore (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Broichmore. The system worked fine and there was no need at all to introduce a "flat list" category here. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: When "Ships" was first conceived, a category for names was made, called "Ships names". It was later felt that a flat list was required and so "Ships by name" was created. The latters only fault was a lack of prescriptive instruction for its content in its header, which you and others finally fixed. Hence there is no need for lengthening its name into "Ships by name (flat list)". Lengthening its title only creates problems with slow internet connections. Tell me, afresh, at this moment in time, given the amendments and improvements (you and others sponsored) to the page "Ships by name" header (which made it into a so called flat list), why it should it be changed to "Ships by name (flat list)". How is that an improvement. What does it solve? Seeing as "Ship names" now holds the sub cats YOU did not want there. I'm not the only person not to see the point in this change. Stunteltje, Huntster, Rmhermen, have all agreed at some point that there is no need for it. Again please reinstall its contents. Broichmore (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, please correct me if this is not an accurate comparison of the two systems that are being proposed.

Old system TMQ system

Thanks, Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The old system stopped working once "Ships by name" and the subcategories of "Ships by name by type" had the same content, so a textbook case of overcategorisation ensued. In terms of naming there is may not be need an apparent need to have the new "(flat list)" disambiguation, but it makes it clear that "Ships by name" should no longer be used for individual ship categories. Category:Ships by name by type, however, is a valid subcategory for "Ships by name" and should not have been removed from its parent at all. TMQ's system as listed above provides a well-structured category tree that goes along with the requirements of our category guideline, and also follows a logical taxonomy. De728631 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Its not a case of over over-categorisation. This category solves the continual problem of ship identification, where names are re-used multiple times, even in the same year, its necessary to have an (overview) register of ALL ships names.
"Ships by name by type" is completely different, it is not an overview cat of all ships names.
Ships very often change their identity / type over time. Example sidewheel steamers were often converted into barges in their late working life. Liners into troop transports or hospital ships. Sailing Ships converted into into paddle steamers. Fishing boats into gunboats. Gunboats into yachts and launches. Four masts to three masts. There are also many grey areas in ship types, where a ship can fall into two or more types. Example Sailing Yachts and steam yachts. Ships can crossover into several descriptions barques, schooners, as can Clippers.
Trust this explains the need for "Ships by name". If anything this is the only mandatory cat for a ship. Wikipedia content acts as an index that makes many shipping cats redundant; including "Ships by name by type".
Aircraft are a completely different life form, and are not directly comparable. They are made in batches or in series, by type and are largely therefore anonymous. They are very often not bespoke made, or unique, or Launched. They are seldom reported on or written about as individuals. Therefore "by type" is a valid form of categorisation. Anyway I'm not an expert on Aircraft and would not presume to weigh into that area and would leave it, to its own experts.Broichmore (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point, Broichmore. Are you suggesting that, for example, the category of Category:Edisa (ship, 1959) should not go in Category:General cargo ships because it might someday be converted? We should/could instead include only photos (not ship categories) in ship-type categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the cataloging of the Edisa at the moment. Except that it could go into even more cats, for example different ship owner names. If it were converted at anytime then it wouldn't change its category it would have an additional one added for it new role. Ships lives are like your CV, everytime your job changes so does your role, your job title, your salary, your employer. If you were a miner in 1959, and a broker in 1969. you would appear in those two cats. I don't care how many cats a ship appears in, its virtually unlimited. The more cats are created the more curational overhead exists. The only essential cat is "Ships by name". Broichmore (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
From COM:OVERCAT: Don't place an item into a category and its parent. For example, a black and white photo of the Eiffel Tower should be placed in Black and white photographs of the Eiffel Tower. It should not be placed in both that category and the Paris category at the same time.
Overcategorisation occurs whenever a category and its subcategory are placed in the same parent category (see the example scheme for overcategorised files). This was the case for "Ships by name by type" which is why these discussions where started in the first place. This has nothing to do with identifying ship names or a possible reuse of names, but it is about the structure and hierarchy of the category tree. The Commons community has approved the principle of "Don't place an item into a category and its parent", so this was in fact a problem. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ships by name and "Ships by name by type" are and should be at the same level. It's inevitable that every ship will appear in multiple categories, there's no way to avoid it. Example a Royal Navy tanker and depot ship, could appear in more than four cats, especially if at some stage sold to (and converted by) a commonwealth navy. None of these "sub categories" will ever be truly complete, the curation overhead is immense. However "Ships by name" is the only mandatory cat for a ship to be in, regardless of its type. Ships differs from other areas in Commons in that it is highly bespoke. Cat-a-lot is almost useless here. Every file has to be opened before it can be individually categorized. Ships are by their nature as unique as human beings. I have actually said before now that categories outside of "Ships by name", are largely if not totally redundant. Wikipedia acts as an index for ships and their classes whether we like it or not.
Proposed system

The problem you have identified is what to do, with "Ships with only one image"? -Broichmore (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: What goes in Category:Categories by ship name? Not Category:Ships by name again? And you're sure you don't want Category:Ships by name to be a direct child category of Category:Ships, even though all the other "Ships by X" categories are there? It doesn't seem ideal to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Categories by ship name sits at the same level as Category:Ships by name within "Ship names". I really don't care how many levels or places Category:Ships by name appears in. Being in several different places is probably a good thing; as I keep saying it is the only cat in "ships" that is mandatory or essential for an individual ship category (Edisa (ship, 1959)) to be assigned to. -Broichmore (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Themightyquill, you picked an odd example (Category:Edisa (ship, 1959)) as that ship only sailed as Edisa from 1972-1974 and sank in 1978. It was called Disa for 13 years and Calypso Trader for 4 years. Even stranger that category is sorting under the number 5 instead of alphabetically in the General cargo ships and ships (flat list) categories and I can't see why. Rmhermen (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I just now added an image to the Edisa cat, that was lost in the ether. The order of appearance is number 5 because the database has been told to file and sort under IMO number. That's obviously wrong. This is a good example where either a mistake has been made or someone with insufficient experience of "Ships" has meddled. This is not a place to make decisions about, without extensive hands on experience. -Broichmore (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
We're drifting here. We seem to have started talking about the whole structure of "ships", example Category:Ships by name by type is the same thing as Category:Categories by ship name‎ one of these is pointless. I would delete the second. I alluded to similar flaws before now, and there are many here. What we are defending right now is the sanctity of the this particular category. At this moment in time, given the amendments and improvements to the page header of "Ships by name" (which made it into a so called flat list), I see no reason why it should it be changed to "Ships by name (flat list)". The new name is too long for comprehension and or useability where the internet is slow, and needs to be reverted. Its change for the sake of change; and unwanted by the ship community. The longer the title here, the more niche, the subject. We don't really want to be saddled with a long title for a basal and popular cat such as this. -Broichmore (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I have real trouble believing that the extra 12 bytes of data in " (flat list)" is going to have any effect on useability where the internet is slow. There aren't many people using 300baud modems anymore. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
That's besides the point, a peripheral issue. The main issue here, which you doggedly refuse to address is 51,619 instances of folders being moved to a place no-one in the shipping community wants. You obviously want to repeat this in Category:Categories by name (flat list), where you can do the same to another 96 categories. Your "original" invention of "Flat List", presumably derived from the term "Flat-file databases" is un-wanted. I'm sorry Quill, but you have given no clear explanation of why this change is required, and it needs to be reverted. As you so aptly put it "this is not how Commons works". Regards. -Broichmore (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Broichmore: Even if I believed your incredibly strong feelings on this issue represent the entire "shipping community" (unless it's a pretty small community), Commons categorization does not exist exclusively for people "in the shipping community". It follows a set of standard logically organized structures so that everyone can find the image they are looking for and properly categorize the image they upload. The side-by-side table above demonstrates exactly why this is needed. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Quill, you have been told by active members of the shipping community (all of whom are established creative editors), and who have been here in these discussions, to desist and revert. Commons categorization procedures are completely intact in both "Ships", and this matter and will continue to be so provided you revert. Shipping already adhered to the established procedures, before you happened upon it. It is your initial action, and subsequent prevarications that are the deviation/s to the Commons categorization procedures. Everyone "else" who has visited, has professed no specific agreement to the move, they have only asked for simplistic clarifications demanding monosyllabic answers, and had no further comment to make; something unheard of in the shipping community, I might add. This change, which you did not propose but yet, have unilaterally actioned, is a deviation to the Commons categorization procedures. Please revert it. -Broichmore (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring you, I just disagree. I've made my case, and I don't feel you've responded to my argument. I recognize that you don't like my proposed change so you can stop telling me that over and over, but I don't feel you've presented a valid reason to oppose it, or a valid reason to keep the illogical old system. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I can see you disagree, with so many on this issue. I have given full responses to your arguments; both specific and non-sequitur. I even described to you the failings within "Ships". The changes to the illogical system have not been opposed, indeed I suggested further improvements. The valid reason for not changing the name of this category was given in detail several times. Its' longer than it needs to be. The extended term "flat line" is both your own invention, it's needed, and unwanted. The deficiencies within the cat were resolved by putting directions into the header, some of which you put there yourself. All that's opposed here is the renaming of the category, and your moving away of its content. -Broichmore (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: See previous post. Quill, Its about time that you changed back this category to its original state. Again you have studiedly ignored what I and others have said to you. You've failed to justify your actions here. Ignoring consensus in such an obvious way and with such artifice is not good form. Broichmore (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring you, and I again request that you stop accusing me of acting in bad faith. I created this discussion specifically in response to your concerns. I don't believe consensus has been reached. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: What you are ignoring is what has been said to you, time and again by self and others (who are established "ship editors". The consensus is that this change is unnecessary. I implore you to read afresh this and the other relevant strings and you will see that is the case. -Broichmore (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, I'm not ignoring you - I simply disagree with you. I disagree with your argument. I disagree that you've acknowledged any of the flaws in your design. I disagree with your conclusion that consensus has been reached. I disagree with the idea that your self-created designation as "established ship editors" has any special weight here, since the discussion is not about some technical detail of ship building, but about commons categorization structure. Since you're not adding anything new to this discussion, however, I'm considering ignoring you in the future. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Yes the designation "established ship editors" is irrelevant here. I have designed nothing. You persist in twisting whats been said. However you can disagree, but when you fail as an Administrator to be objective in your judgements, and consistently ignore what been said to you, and fail in turn to justify your actions, and resort to gamesmanship to further your aims, then you show yourself to be unworthy of the status of Adminship. You should resign and surrender your powers, that you may have acquired with a free bag of skittles at the start of the project. Now that's a new topic. When an admin ignores the policy they are supposed to be using and defending; thats a problem. Please revert what you have done to the Category, which, again, has been requested of you by consensus of other editors. I sincerely hope you come to your senses here. Regards -Broichmore (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Category:Ships by name (flat list) is the correct way to name this category. It is an index category of all ship categories which specify the ship's name. Category:Ships by name can be subcategorized, and items in it thus need to be removed from Category:Ships by name to be added to sub-categories. Adding them to Category:Ships by name (flat list) removes OVERCAT problems. The system listed by Themightyquill (talk · contribs) under TMQ System is the best of the proposals yet put forward. Category:Categories by ship name is a mess, it contains wholly seperate types of content that deserve their own properly named categories (probably warrants its own CfD in the future). The TMQ system is simple, straight-forward, compliant with Commons guidelines, and consistent with naming and structure for other category trees. Josh (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Not all boats are ships, but all ships are boats. A narrowboat is not a ship and Category:Narrowboats by name should not be included in under the categories about ships. — PBS (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@PBS: That's a bit of a side issue, so I'm going to make some comments on your talk page instead. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

I have come across this discussion several times and am really struggling to understand it, just as I am struggling to understand what the heck to do with individual ship images. But I can't see why we need a category called "ships by name" and a category called "ships by name (flat list)", I don't even know what a flat list is or how it is supposed to differ from the "ships by name" category, and when I look at either of these categories they look the same. Ship categorization on Commons just seems like a horrible mess and it seems to me that we need to go back to basics and work out a structure for the categories that is logical, consistent and intuitive. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: No individual ship images should go in any of these categories. "by name" categories are for categories only. I think we can all agree that category structure is a mess, and the discussion about best how to solve it. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I had a think about this after posting about it last night, and it looks to me as though there is nothing of importance in the "Ships by name" category anyhow, it appears to only exist now as a parent category of "Ships by name by type" - and I'm not sure why we even need a "Ships by name by type" category. So it seems to me that the most logical thing to do would be to either eliminate the "Ships by name by type" category altogether, or else move it to a category on the same level as "Ships by name". Either way, we could then get rid of the "Ships by name (flat list)" category that I and I'm sure many others find confusing, and put everything back in the "Ships by name" category where they originally were. It also bothers me that the "Ships by name (flat list)" category is anomalous to all the other "x by name" categories, because that too is bound to create confusion. So they are my first thoughts on the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I'm not sure I understand. When you don't understand why we need Category:Ships by name by type, you mean we should delete it all its subcategories (Category:Cargo ships by name‎, Category:Naval ships by name‎, etc)?) If not, where should we put them? And if we put Category:Cargo ships by name in Category:Ships by name and delete Category:Ships by name (flat list), should (for example) Category:Aberdeen (ship, 2009)‎ go just in Category:Cargo ships by name? Or it should be both in Category:Ships by name and its child category Category:Cargo ships by name (contravening Com:Overcat)? How do you see this working? Themightyquill (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response TMQ, it has helped clarify your position for me. Unfortunately I'm a little busy right now and may not be able to return to this discussion for a few days, but will do so as soon as I can. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

Category:Swaziland[edit]

This country is no longer officially known as Swaziland, its official title in English is the Kingdom of Eswatini. Enwiki has changed the article name and several category names to reflect this. This category and subs should be changed to reflect the country's correct name. Josh (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Support renaming to Eswatini (without "Kingdom of"). --Auntof6 (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Support, shall rename every "Swaziland" to "Estawini" (without the "Kingdom of"), unless such name is for historical purpose. Chongkian (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Good, but please spell it correctly. If it helps, note that the correct spelling contains the word swat. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree, no 'Kingdom of' in the category name. Josh (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Unless these are specific categories for that form of government, within a category like "Government of Eswatini" and for including subcategories for kings or royal families, or if this is related to the precolonial history (or in the history of colonial South Africa) where distinctions of different entities (in present-day Eswatini, possibly also covering areas outside of it) may be needed. verdy_p (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to Category:Eswatini As I noted here that we would need to rename. However I'd consider excluding the same CATs as was noted at the ENCFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Could you help with this? Please note the exceptions included in the wikipedia discussion that Crouch, Swale has listed above. Perhaps it would be best to post a full list of the potentially affected categories here first, and then if there are problems we can spot them more easily? I'm not sure what's best. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to Category:Eswatini verdy_p (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Themightyquill, Crouch, Swale: Here's the list of categories I've found. Please remove the ones that are exceptions (the en.wiki discussion is too long and confusing to be followed), so that I can proceed. Thanks!! --Ruthven (msg) 21:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

List of categories named from Swaziland[edit]

1951 in Swaziland
1998 events in Swaziland
1998 in sports in Swaziland
1998 in Swaziland
1998 sports events in Swaziland
2003 in Swaziland
2004 in aviation in Swaziland
2004 in Swaziland
2004 in transport in Swaziland
2006 in Swaziland
2009 in Swaziland
2012 in Swaziland
2014 in Swaziland
2015 in aviation in Swaziland
2015 in Swaziland
2015 in transport in Swaziland
2016 in Swaziland
2017 in Swaziland
2019 in Swaziland
African International Airways
Agricultural terraces in Swaziland
Agriculture in Swaziland
Aircraft at airports in Swaziland
Aircraft of Swaziland
Airfields in Swaziland
Airlines of Swaziland
Airlink Swaziland
Airport buildings in Swaziland
Airports in Swaziland
Airport terminals in Swaziland
Ambassadors of the United States to Swaziland
Ambassadors to Swaziland
Anacardiaceae in Swaziland
Animals of Swaziland
Annonaceae in Swaziland
Apostolic Nuncios to Swaziland
Archaeological sites in Swaziland
Audio files of Swaziland
Automobile competitions in Swaziland by type
Automobile driving in Swaziland
Automobile driving in Swaziland
Automobile events in Swaziland
Automobile races in Swaziland by type
Automobile racing in Swaziland by type
Automobiles in Swaziland
Aviation in Swaziland
Aviation in Swaziland by decade
Aviation in Swaziland by year
Aviation in Swaziland in the 2000s
Aviation in Swaziland in the 2010s
Beauty pageants in Swaziland
Bilateral maps of Swaziland
Bilateral relations of Swaziland
Birds of Swaziland
Black and white photographs of Swaziland
Bodies of water in Swaziland
Buildings in Swaziland
Buildings in Swaziland by function
Canis mesomelas
Categories of Swaziland
Categories of Swaziland by century
Categories of Swaziland by date
Categories of Swaziland by type
Categories of Swaziland by year
Category navigational templates for Swaziland
Children of Swaziland
CIA World Factbook maps of Swaziland
Cities in Swaziland
Cliffs of Swaziland
Clothing of Swaziland
Coats of arms of Swaziland
Coins of Swaziland
Competitions in Swaziland
Cuisine of Swaziland
Dams in Swaziland
Dance of Swaziland
Death in Swaziland
Deaths in Swaziland
Defunct airlines of Swaziland
Demographics of Swaziland
Documents of Swaziland
Driving in Swaziland
Economy of Swaziland
Education in Swaziland
Embassies of Swaziland
Embassy of Swaziland, Washington, D.C.
Entertainment events in Swaziland
Entertainment in Swaziland
Erosion in Swaziland
Erosion landforms in Swaziland
Ethnic groups in Swaziland
Events in Swaziland
Events in Swaziland by year
Festivals of Swaziland
Flag maps of Eswatini
Flags of Eswatini
Flora of Swaziland
Flora of Swaziland by order
Flora of Swaziland by taxon
Fluvial erosion in Swaziland
Fluvial geomorphology of Swaziland
Geography of Swaziland
Geology of Swaziland
Geomorphology of Swaziland
Government of Swaziland
Health in Swaziland
High Commission of Swaziland, London
Hiking in Swaziland
Historical photographs of Swaziland
History of Swaziland
History of Swaziland by period
Huts in Swaziland
Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2014 in Swaziland
Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2015 in Swaziland
Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2016 in Swaziland
Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2017 in Swaziland
Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2019 in Swaziland
Infrastructure in Swaziland
Insects of Swaziland
International borders of Swaziland
International relations of Swaziland
Lamiaceae in Swaziland
Lamiales in Swaziland
Landforms of Swaziland
Languages of Swaziland
Lepidoptera of Swaziland
LGBT in Swaziland
Lions of Swaziland
Location maps of Swaziland
Locator maps of Swaziland
Magnoliales in Swaziland
Mammals of Swaziland
Maps of Swaziland
Markets in Swaziland
Men of Swaziland
Meter stamps of Swaziland
Military of Swaziland
Mineralogy of Swaziland
Minerals of Swaziland
Mining in Swaziland
Miss Swaziland
Money of Swaziland
Months in Swaziland
Motorsports in Swaziland
Mountains of Swaziland
Musicians from Swaziland
Music of Swaziland
National parks in Swaziland
Nature of Swaziland
Off-road automobile competitions in Swaziland
Off-road automobile races in Swaziland
Off-road automobile racing in Swaziland
Off-roading in Swaziland
Off-road racing in Swaziland
Old maps of Swaziland
Outcrops in Swaziland
Outdoor recreation in Swaziland
Parks in Swaziland
Passports of Swaziland
Passport stamps of Swaziland
People at work in Swaziland
People of Swaziland
People of Swaziland by occupation
Petrology of Swaziland
Photographs of Swaziland
Politicians of Swaziland
Politics of Swaziland
Population pyramids of Swaziland
Post of Swaziland
Princesses of Swaziland
Pronunciation of Swaziland
Public services of Swaziland
Quality images of Swaziland
Rail transport in Swaziland
Rail transport maps of Swaziland
Rally raid automobile competitions in Swaziland
Rally raid automobile racing in Swaziland
Recreation in Swaziland
Regions of Swaziland
Ribbon bars of Swaziland
Rivers of Swaziland
Roads in Swaziland
Road transport in Swaziland
Road vehicles in Swaziland
Rock art in Swaziland
Rock formations in Swaziland
Rock paintings in Swaziland
Rocks in Swaziland
Royalty of Swaziland
Sapindales in Swaziland
Satellite pictures of Swaziland
Science and technology in Swaziland
September 1998 in Swaziland
September in Swaziland
Services in Swaziland
Sibusiso Matsenjwa
Society of Swaziland
Sport in Swaziland
Sports competitions in Swaziland
Sports events in Swaziland
Sports events in Swaziland by year
Sports in Swaziland
Sports in Swaziland by sport
Sports in Swaziland by year
Stamps of Swaziland
Stones in Swaziland
Suicides in Swaziland
SVG labeled maps of administrative divisions of Swazilan
SVG locator maps of regions in Swazilan
SVG locator maps of Swazilan
SVG maps of Swaziland
Swaziland at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics
Swaziland at the Olympic Games
Swaziland at the Summer Youth Olympics
Swaziland at the Youth Olympics
Swaziland by century
Swaziland by decade
Swaziland by year
Swaziland in the 19th century
Swaziland in the 20th century
Swaziland in the 21st century
Swaziland in the 1880s
Swaziland in the 1950s
Swaziland in the 1990s
Swaziland in the 2000s
Swaziland in the 2010s
Symbols of Swaziland
Technology events in Swaziland
Technology in Swaziland
Tectonic landforms in Swaziland
Templates related to Swaziland
Temporal population graphs of Swaziland
Teucrioideae in Swaziland
Topographic maps of Swaziland
Topography of Swaziland
Tourism in Swaziland
Transport buildings in Swaziland
Transport events in Swaziland
Transport infrastructure in Swaziland
Transport in Swaziland
Transport in Swaziland by decade
Transport in Swaziland by year
Transport in Swaziland in the 2000s
Transport in Swaziland in the 2010s
Transport maps of Swaziland
Trucks in Swaziland
Unidentified animals in Swaziland
Unidentified insects of Swaziland
Unidentified Lepidoptera of Swaziland
Vehicles in Swaziland
Videos from Swaziland
Visas of Swaziland
Visitor attractions in Swaziland
Waterfalls in Swaziland
Wiki Loves Africa in Swaziland
Wikimedia movement in Swaziland
Women at work in Swaziland
Women of Swaziland

PS: There is this one, that looks weird, can you please double check? Category:Copyright rules of eSwatini

I've removed Category:Mantenga Swazi Cultural Village, Category:Swazi Airways, and Category:King Mswati III International Airport. @Crouch, Swale: Have I missed anything else important?
Wikipedia kept all dated categories prior to 2018 as "Swaziland", but created "21st century in in Eswatini." That would mean Category:Swaziland in the 2000s stas the same, but Category:Swaziland in the 2010s gets renamed. Should we follow that example? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: I think many of the specific year categories (that it to say those before 2018) see w:Category:Years of the 21st century in Eswatini would use "Swaziland" while those that deal with both before 2018 and after such as Category:Swaziland in the 2010s should use "Eswatini". In other words Category:2015 in Swaziland shouldn't be renamed since at that time it was "Swaziland" Category:2019 in Swaziland should be renamed to Category:2019 in Eswatini since at that time (now!) the country is "Eswatini". Category:Transport in Swaziland in the 2010s should be renamed since it deals with both times when it was "Swaziland" and "Eswatini". Any yes other categories that aren't based on a specific time-frame (and their sub categories) such as Category:Sport in Swaziland should be renamed unless the name "Swaziland" is part of the name of an entity. So for example in you're list;
  • 1951 in Swaziland
  • 1998 events in Swaziland
  • 1998 in sports in Swaziland
  • 1998 in Swaziland
  • 1998 sports events in Swaziland
  • 2003 in Swaziland
  • 2004 in aviation in Swaziland
  • 2004 in Swaziland
  • 2004 in transport in Swaziland
  • 2006 in Swaziland
  • 2009 in Swaziland
  • 2012 in Swaziland
  • 2014 in Swaziland
  • 2015 in aviation in Swaziland
  • 2015 in Swaziland
  • 2015 in transport in Swaziland
  • 2016 in Swaziland
  • 2017 in Swaziland
would be renamed but not "2019 in Swaziland". That should apply to the rest. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I imagined it, as that's what wikipedia has done. Our pattern here is a little inconsistent, since we do have anachronisms like Category:1532 in the United States‎. But unless anyone opposes, I suppose we'll just follow wikipedia's lead in the case of Swaziland vs Eswatini. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please note that for renaming a country category, you must NOT replace directly the old name by the new name in the data module: you need to preserve the old name as a secondary alias. Otherwise navigation is immediately broken across all related pages using {{Countries of Africa}}, because it cannot locate the old pages waiting to be renamed.
Then for renaming, don't create a new category, but use "rename" to move the page (this also updates the entry in Wikidata), and keep the new redirecting page with the old name to the new name, and if that old page is a category, of course you need to move its contents to the new category. You should keep the redirecting template left in the old category (not blank it, not delete it), as it really helps the navigation, from within this wiki but as well from external sites (including search engines) that can locate the new name with no surprise. The redirecting category can remain empty (no members), with just the redirecting template, and should no longer be linked with pages on other wikis (check Wikidata to fix that). verdy_p (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

List of pages named from Swaziland[edit]

These pages must be renamed by administrators (not copy-pasted) to preserve the history

verdy_p (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that this may apply to other galery pages in the root namespace. verdy_p (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Civil aircraft/Pre 1940[edit]

Upmerge into parent category Category:Civil aircraft. This category is arbitrary and unnecessary. Josh (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone wants to subdivide Category:Aircraft by decade with Category:Civil aircraft by decade, that might be useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see how 1940 is a viable cut-off date in the history of civil aviation. De728631 (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Themightyquill, De728631: Closed without opposition. Upmerge Category:Civil aircraft/Pre 1940 into parent category Category:Civil aircraft. Sort contents into Category:Aircraft by decade as appropriate. Josh (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:National flag of Palestine[edit]

Thanks for closing the discussion, but it's been a non-issue since Orrling got herself banned four years ago. She probably had some good intentions, but insisted on doing many things in the most annoying possible way... AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem with {{Aircraft of operator}}[edit]

Hi Josh. I've run into a problem with your template...it had been applied to Category:Beechcraft aircraft of NASA at some point, and never was proper functional. I came across it because it was trying to sort into the primary Category:NASA category. As far as I can tell, all the parameters should be correct, but it is still breaking. I've commented it out so that it doesn't interfere with the live category. Mind looking in to whats going wrong?

Additionally, I see this template as being quite useful, but it has virtually no documentation to describe what some things do, or examples to show exactly what needs to go where. Even looking at the code, I can't tell what some things do. Is this something that could be made more user friendly? Huntster (t @ c) 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like a few steps are required to fix this. The template has to recognize that 'Beechcraft aircraft' are a subset of 'aircraft', and therefore that if 'aircraft of ...' exists, it should be under that, and only if it does not exist should it be placed at the next higher level. The same logic applies to it being under 'aircraft in United States government service' as opposed to the parent 'aircraft in United States service'. It seems to work okay for 'aircraft in Foo service' categories, but adding these extra parameters is going to take a bit of extra work. I am working on folding this into Template:Aircraft cat so I haven't done much with 'Aircraft of operator' lately. I will take a look at it and see what I can do. For now, commenting it out and using manual categorization works.
I totally agree on the documentation issue. I will see about giving that an upgrade as well. Josh (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I made a bit of an assumption I suppose. I made an assumption that the "g" tag for type of user would place it into "United States government service", and that "Beechcraft aircraft" would be applied in a case of 'this doesn't match any pre-set terms, so directly apply it'. I love templates, and just haven't had time to really delve into this one's code (I'm at work). If you are deciding to fold things into "Aircraft cat", then all the better...the issue I raised was just something I randomly came across due to seeing a suspect edit, so it is certainly not a priority issue. Let me know if I can help with any testing or whatnot. Huntster (t @ c) 19:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category talk cfd[edit]

Hi. Thank you for documenting resolved Cfd discussions with this template. It is a shame that there is no provision for a link to the original discussion (or the archive of it).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is a link to the original discussion. If you click the edit button, you will be editing the original CfD discussion, though most of these are archived and should not be actually edited. Josh (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Number_17_on_products[edit]

E4024 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Folk art of Mexico[edit]

Thanks for closing the CFD. Did you leave the CFD template on the category for a reason, or did you just forget to remove it? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, missed that one. Thanks for noting it. Josh (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. I've been trying to think of a way to check all the categories with that template to see if the linked discussions are closed, but I haven't come up with a way. I suspect we have a number of categories where the template could be removed, especially for discussions that included multiple categories. Maybe someone with bot skills could do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is a very easy step to miss when going through the process of closing discussions. However, I think it is pretty harmless as anyone who notices the CfD is closed can remove the tag. If you find an automated way to identify these, let me know, I'd be happy to go work on cleaning them up. Josh (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Aircraft cat template[edit]

Hi, Josh. This template seems to be setting more categories than it should. I just removed it from a couple of categories (Category:Carrier-based dive bomber aircraft and Category:Dive bomber aircraft) because it was causing overcategorization. Then I noticed that there are others with the same issue, so I'm not removing any more, but could you take a look at this? Another one I'm looking at is Category:Flight inspection aircraft, which shouldn't need to be in Category:Vehicles. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Thanks for alerting me. It seems the issue arises when attaching the template to a class that isn't covered in {{Aircraft label}}. I have fixed the vehicles categorization you noticed on Category:Flight inspection aircraft, so check that and make sure it is more to your liking now. Josh (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Definitely better, thanks. There are some other things I'm seeing under Category:Aircraft by type:
Those are just a few I noticed. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I figure there is some more discussion that should happen around those kinds of categories in the future, and the templates can be modified to match consensus at that point. For the meantime, letting 'by type' be a general index of all types so users don't have to understand the full taxonomy of what they are looking for. Thus having Category:Dive bomber aircraft directly under 'by type' doesn't seem too offensive to me for the time being. As a side note, I think Category:Record breaking aircraft was supposed to be for aircraft specifically designed or modified for the purpose of setting new aviation records, not just any aircraft that was designed for another purpose but happened to set some record for something. There are a lot of different ways 'type' has been used and interpreted, so I'm fine with leaving it a general catch-all. Cats can also be placed in more specific metacats of course. Josh (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I have another one for you. The template is saying that Category:Douglas aircraft by name is a metacat, but it isn't one. Most "by name" categories aren't metacats, because they don't group multiple things that have the same name. I also see that Template:Aircraft cat/manufacturer by has Category:Meta categories hardcoded. That should never be hardcoded; it should only be added via the {{MetaCat}} template. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... Admittedly there is only really Category:Uiver (aircraft) directly in Category:Douglas aircraft by name to look at so one might question the need for that particular category at all, but if it exists, it is perfectly correct to consider it a metacat I would think, as it should only have categories within it, not files. As for the hardcoding question, since anything using {{Aircraft cat/manufacturer by}} should be a metacat, why not include metacat sorting and save the need for the extra template to be added (or forgotten) on each individual category? Josh (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The need to contain only categories is not what makes something a metacat. A metacat has subcats that are multiple things grouped by a particular criterion. The "by name" categories can be confusing in this way because "by name" can mean different things. For example, look at Category:Hotels by name (a metacat) and Category:Board games by name (not a metacat). The subcats for hotels are each for all hotels with the indicated name (for example, Category:Hotels named Bristol); in this case, "by name" means "grouped by shared name"--different things with the same name are grouped there. The subcats for board games are each for an individual game (for example, Category:7 Wonders (board game)); in this case, "by name" means that each game is identified by name and there is one category for each game. For categories like the board games, you use {{CatCat}}, not {{MetaCat}}, to indicate that the category should contain only other categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I am not seeing why these two are fundamentally different. It is true that most of the hotels in Hotels by name are grouped into "Hotels named name" categories, but not all are (e.g. Adina Apartment Hotels). Also, most board games in Board games by name have unique names but that is also not exclusively so (i.e. there could well crop up a "Board games named xxx" category if there were a specific name used by more than one game). While most topics might trend towards either one or the other, they are not exclusive. Certainly you do not intend that we should have two parallel "Topic by name" categories, one for "Topic named xxx" and the other for "xxx (topic)" categories requirings users to know whether the name they are looking for is used by more than one category within the topic, are you? Or that we should have to create a "Topic named xxx" category to hold "xxx (topic)", even if there is only one category by that name under the topic? Josh (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The hotel chain categories are questionable there, IMO, but the category is intended to be for groupings. As for the board name category, if there were multiple games with the same name, that could be handled either by just making separate individual entries or by creating a metacategory for them. You could also create a disambiguation category for them. Template:MetaCat says "Use this tag for meta categories only, that should only contain other categories that are grouped by a specified criterion." Commons:Meta category also explains that metacategories are for groupings of things that have something in common. I know this is tricky to understand: it's because "by name" is used in different ways.
As far as parallel categories, I haven't seen a case where we'd need that. For example, we have Category:People by name which is for individual people and is not a metacategory; where there are mulitple people with the same name we use a disambiguation page (for example, Category:Cornelis Danckerts), not a metacategory. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
As for whether to hardcode the metacat category, I wasn't suggesting that it should be coded on each category. I was saying that Template:Aircraft cat/manufacturer by should be changed to use the metacat template instead of hardcoding the category there. Although in this case, it might need to use the catcat template instead in some cases. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you are saying here. However there are some layout issues I am trying to fix there. So long as the functionality is correct, I don't see a technical problem, especially since {{MetaCat}} is pretty stable, but I will try some alternatives to get it to where I can just call {{MetaCat}} from {{Aircraft cat}}. Josh (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

L'Illustration category renames[edit]

Would you like some help with these? Just give me a subset to work on--or even all of the remaining ones--and I'll be glad to do them. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course! I'm working backwards chronologically, there are a lot in 1915 to do so if you want to start from the other end of it, much appreciated! Josh (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Will do. When they're all done, I can use AWB to go through them all and add sort keys so they're in date order. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I finished 1915, adding sort keys and date categories like you did. I also tagged all the old ones as renamed to get them deleted. It looks like all the years are done now. Let me know if there's any remaining task that you'd like help with. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I'm just hoping to close some more CfDs this week and get them done. If there are any more batches like this one, I'll ping you. Thanks! Josh (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)