Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2009/06

< Commons:Categories for discussion | Archive | 2009

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

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
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
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Archive June 2009


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

Category:Ponte Quattro Capi (Rome)

edit

I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:

  • The current name is according to the commons rules and I strongly oppose any move to another Italian name unless there is a consensus for it and the new name is proven as the official used one. Searches in the Italian Wiki and on google seem to indicate that "Ponte Quattro Capi " is significantly more used than "Ponte dei Quattro Capi"
  • The current names are according to the commons rules and I definitively try to avoid renames once a compromise (and peace) is found and unchallenged since more than a year.
  • Systematic disambiguation is not forbidden, and I would even encourage it.
  • The category has been created by user:G.dallorto, an Italian user with an edit count of 227000. Although I am not always completely satisfied with some of his naming conventions, at least he managed to bring a consistent naming in Italy, which is now more consistent than in most other countries. His position is that a name should be predictable so he can type it in without checking or searching. Moreover, preemptive disambiguation is certainly the best solution in the long run; 20 % of the rename requests could have been avoided if people did foresee a bit more disambiguation. There is nothing that forbids disambiguation and in the end, there will be many more commons categories than there will be wikipedia articles, meaning that Commons will need more disambiguation than wikipedias.
  • So basically, I see no ground for stirring up the debate and for renaming. --Foroa (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not with the "dei" but the "(Rome)". Since the bridge's name is unique, this specification is redundant and should be removed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Current_requests/2009/06/Category:Ancient_Roman_bridges Disambiguation is a good practise for coherent naming, no reason to remove it. --Foroa (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Please cite the relevant Commons rules you base your actions on. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing old thread. No consensus to rename, current naming is not inconsistent. -- User:Docu at 14:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion 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:Impacts (Mars)

edit

The naming of this category is inconsistent with the other subcategories of Category:Impact craters; the other categories are all of the form "Impact craters on [body]". I think this should be moved to "Impact craters on Mars" --Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will be renamed to Category:Impact craters on Mars --Foroa (talk) 05
53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This deletion discussion 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:The World’s Top 10 Ugliest Buildings

edit

Reasons for discussion request -- This is outrageously subjective, and should be deleted to avoid setting a precedent or justification for categorising things according to revenue seeking top 10 lists of commercial organisations. oneblackline (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least rename to show who's opinion it is.--JIrate (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, maybe this list is subjective, bat haw many lists in wikipedia are that? I think that, and is'nt necessarly a joke, it's OK that a similar list stay on Commons, of course not the page on wikipedia, but a simple and innoffensive category on commons that contains the 10 "buildings & monuments" maybe. Suggest you a new name, if you want, but for me the correct name is that of virtualtourism talks about. For the moment I report the references. PS what you think about my macheronioc english? ;) Sorry, I'm from Italy. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to delete it immediately. --Aushulz (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Subjetive criteria, overcategorization Belgrano (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion 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:International Order of Oddfellows

edit

No one to blame but myself here; I believe I named this wrong a while back, and it should be Category:Independent Order of Odd Fellows (per: en:Independent Order of Odd Fellows). Descriptions of files in the category probably also need changing, and the subcategories Category:International Order of Oddfellows in Norway and Category:International Order of Oddfellows people should presumably be renamed accordingly.

However, "International Order of Oddfellows" gets over 12,000 GHits, so I'd appreciate if someone who knows this territory better than I do would weigh in before we do anything. - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category named the «Internatinal» Order of Odd Fellows, and agree that the name form Independent Order of Odd Fellows is the more appropriate one. Sandivas talk 10:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandivas: I assume "Internatinal" above is a typo for "International"? - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a typo, written in a hurry this morning, before driving to en:Nesna. I meant of course "International". Anyway, the Odd Fellow is an international movement, and therefore I chose this designation. The concise name on the Order, which they use themselves, however, is the "Independent Order..." This way they are not to be confused with all the other Odd Fellow movements, which is mostly extinct today. Sandivas talk 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Looks like we have consensus here, I'll propose the move. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Wknight94 talk 11:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cuzco

edit

Another category with different spelling Category:Cusco already exists including mores details in subcategories like Category:Churches in Cusco --ErickAgain (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two should indeed be merged. Cusco ist older, so I'd tend to merge there. Note that there are also Category:Cities and villages in Cusco and Category:Cities and villages in region of Cusco which seem to have the same purpose. The latter fits into Category:Cities and villages in Peru by region, but is grammatically questionable: I think those should be "Cities and villages in the region of ...". --rimshottalk 06:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread merged into Category:Cusco and redirected. -- User:Docu at 11:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Architecture by date

edit

and subcats... This tree is redundant to the tree Category:Buildings by year of completion. Architecture by date is quite vague, undefined category. I think the year of completion is best known and the most relevant information. See also this discussion --TomAlt (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta

edit

From User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands :


Rename Category:Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta (talk) to Category:Zygmunt August Lake (0 entries moved, 4 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
requested by User:Yarl
not "Lake Sigismund Augustus" ? See en:Sigismund II Augustus Teofilo (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree that the name of this category needs to be changed, since Wikimedia Commons is worldwide and English is its main language. I've created and named this category after the suggestion of one of polish wikipedia user. Originally, the category was meant for infobox on this Polish wikipedia page. The direct translation of the name Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta from Polish into English sounds more like Zygmunt August's Lake (as if the lake belonged to Zygmunt August), then Lake Zygmut August. Although, when it comes to lake's name usually a word "Lake" is before the main name - which doesn't have to be a rule, as I assume. Also it's very important to remember that Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta is a specific name and cannot be change as Teofilo has suggested, into Lake Sigismund Augustus (which is of Latin origin, the language that was commonly used in Poland as well as in most of the European countries in XVI century). Furthermore, from geographical point of view the name Zygmunt August is more recognizable then it's Latin form - Sigismund Augustus. Therefore, with all my respect I have to oppose Teofilo's version. -- Simpledot (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sigismund" is not the Latin translation of Zygmunt, but the English one. The Latin translation of Zygmunt seems to be "Sigismundus" if what I read on en:Sigismund II Augustus is correct :
Polish Latin English
Zygmunt August Sigismundus Augustus Sigismund Augustus
Jiezioro Lacus Lake
The lake named after Queen Victoria is named en:Lake Victoria in English, so perhaps the lake named after King Sigismund Augustus should be called Lake Sigismund Augustus. I don't think Yarl's proposal mixing the English word "lake" and the Polish word "Zygmunt" is a good idea. Keeping the present Polish name "Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta" as a category name sounds to me better than mixing English and Polish. Teofilo (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't write that Sigismund Augustus was the Latin translation of the King's name but that it was of Latin origin. But again, apparently my English is as bad as my Latin. Anyway, at this point I see no use of discussing it further. I got Teofilo's point. Coming back to the main subject, I could agree with Teofilo that mixing languages while creating new category is not a good idea but then this category, to which Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta belongs as a subcategory (in fact Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta is a reservoir, though is called a lake), consists of similar subcategories and their names are the mixture of English and Polish. My apologies, but as a newbie I wasn't aware that I should keep a specific chronology and coherence when naming the category. If I had been definitely I would have chosen Lake Zygmunt August or Zygmunt August Lake - alike the rest of the names in this category. Next time I will be more careful. -- Simpledot (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think coherence is something which can be found only in the long term, when a category contains enough contents. Wikimedia Commons, like Wikipedia is a work in progress, so I think it is OK if everything is not 100% perfect from the beginning.
but then Category:Reservoirs_in_Poland, to which Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta belongs as a subcategory (in fact Jezioro Zygmunta Augusta is a reservoir, though is called a lake), consists of similar subcategories and their names are the mixture of English and Polish.
Teofilo (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I say it "looks 0K", I mean to me, as a non-Polish speaker. For example I don't know if "Solina" is a nominative or a genitive. If "Solina" happens to be a genitive, perhaps the English naming would need to be turned into "Lake Solin". So, as a non-Polish speaker I may not be able to help much... Teofilo (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Zalew Nielisz - Zalew in English means reservoir, so I think it should be rename into Nielisz Reservoir;
  • Category:Reservoir in Jedlnia-Letnisko - this reservoir looks like it doesn't have its own name. Jedlnia-Letnisko is a name of little town close to this reservoir. I'm not sure, but probably the name of this reservoir is Siczki Górne (Upper Siczki in English) - shall it be renamed into Siczki Górne Reservoir then?;
  • Solina is not a genitive form of a name, it's a specific name.
Thank you Teofilo for reviewing all the subcategories. I really appreciate your help. Simpledot (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale discussion: No consensus on the version to choose, no reference provide for any of them. -- User:Docu at 13:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Visitor centres in the United States

edit

Should be "Visitor centers in the United States" to reflect US spelling. --Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we adapt to the first created category and align to the top level category category:Visitor centres by country, independently whether it is US or British English. --Foroa (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's a spelling-related example that contradicts this, but consider that Category:Petrol stations by country includes Category:Gas stations in the United States (It should also be "Gas stations in Canada" instead of Petrol, but I'll leave it to an editor north of 45 to take umbrage). Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was contacted on my user talk page about this. I have no preference: I think Daniel's and Foroa's arguments here are equally valid, so the choice is essentially arbitrary. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "centers", much better to have this category named in the way that they're generally (i.e. offline) referred to. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "centers" - local spelling should be used in sub-categories. Commonsense trumps consistency. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread. Jmabel requested move to "centers": completed. -- User:Docu at 13:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carlos Latuff

edit

Carlos Latuff cartoons arbitration

edit

It seems clear that Drork and Adambro will never be able to agree on categorization of the Latuff images, and that neither is prepared to give way. If the parties were more flexible, mediation would be a possibility but even with the help of a mediator the parties are not realistically going to come to any settlement. The current situation is leading people to talk about blocks, which we as a community ought to avoid if at all possible, particularly as both parties are good contributors here.

I suggest that the issue be settled by means of arbitration. The following proposal is loosely based on the procedures adopted by the International Chamber of Commerce's International Court of Arbitration:

1. Drork and Adambro have seven days to agree between them the names of three Commons users to form an arbitration panel. Panel members can be selected only if they agree to serve. If no agreement on all three names can be reached within that period, Drork and Adambro will then have 48 hours to nominate one panel member each (not themselves). If either party declines to nominate, the other party shall nominate both. The two nominated panel members will between them appoint the third.

2. Once the panel has been appointed, Drork, Adambro, and anyone else who cares to comment may submit proposals for the way in which cartoons by Carlos Latuff (including File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg) should be categorized, and whether there should be a gallery for his images. Suggestions may also be made as to how, in general, disparaging files relating to living individuals should be categorized.

3. The panel will then decide the issue. The decision need not be one of the suggestions already proposed. If the panel is unable to agree, it will decide by majority vote between the existing suggestions already made by Drork and Adambro. The panel may also set out the way in which similar files should be categorized in the future, whether cartoons or other disparaging material relating to a living public individual.

4. The panel's decision will be final and binding on Drork and Adambro, and both pledge in advance that they will not attempt to undermine that decision. The decision will also be binding on the community as a whole, based on the community's acceptance of this arbitration proposal.

5. This proposal comes into force only if agreed in full by both Drork and Adambro (otherwise we are wasting our time), and only if it is approved by a consensus of the wider community (otherwise, any decision will not stick). After a reasonable time for comments and votes, a bureaucrat will close the discussion and, if it is approved, will start the procedure. The panel shall have the power to modify time limits or to make such other modifications to the procedure as it thinks fit.

I am advertising this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Users Drork and Adambro as well, where there has been some recent discussion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposal

edit
  1. Support A novel idea. Since at least one admin has otherwise recently proposed banning both D and A from the subject area otherwise, this seems clearly worth a try. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --AFBorchert (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC) See below for my comment.[reply]
  3. Worth trying. Lar: t/c 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support, we definitely need a way of closing this issue once and for all. –Tryphon☂ 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the proposal

edit
  1.  Oppose The proposal as currently presented stated "The decision will also be binding on the community as a whole, based on the community's acceptance of this arbitration proposal". I understand it meant the whole community should obey the decission of a panel of three users. It doesn't explain what others users could do if they disagreed with the panel's decission. (Please excuse if I haven't understood it well, and if I haven't expressed my point in proper English) --Javier ME (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose I don't think there should be binding content decisions of three users (BTW chosen by Drork and Adambro who both are not exteriorization of community) to another users or whole community. Arbitration could solve only their behavior to each other, not the content and categorization. Drork and Adambro represent only their point of view, not some "groups" involved in Latuff's images dispute. What is more problems between Drork and Adambro are not limited only to Latuff's images. --Dezidor (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose Just apply COM:CAT. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. These two shouldn't be able to name the people who decide what is binding for the community. I'm ok with them naming the people who decide what binds them. Samulili (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose I oppose this proposal because of the reservations both myself (see below) and the others have about it. I don't think it would be right for the strong opinions of myself and Drork to restrict this issue to simply a panel of three users. As I've indicated, if my opinion would be detrimental to the rest of the community in this way then I will happily refrain from commenting on this issue. I would propose that instead of focusing on the two individuals who have been amongst the most vocal about this issue, we focus on the issue itself and allow the community as a whole to decide. I propose this could initially take the form of a number of statements which we invite the community to express whether they endorse similar to the "Findings of fact" used as part of the Arbitration process on Wikipedia, such as "Categories are tools for organising content related to the subject of the category", or perhaps "Adding content to a category is simply a recognition that the content is related to category's subject, not an endorsement of what the content portrays". Just quick ideas but hopefully demonstrate what might be put forward. We could leave that process to run for a week or two and then hopefully have a good flavour of the consensus of the community. I'm not sure how we'd proceed from there but hopefully someone else will be able to suggest how this process could work in greater detail. Adambro (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose I spotted this on the general discussion board and have little interest in it, but I don't think it is wise to allow any two people from an edit war to nominate who will write policy for Wikimedia Commons. Even if it were truly necessary to elect a triumvirate to set policy, it would still be best to elect it by a consensus of all users.
I should also note that there is a straightforward solution here. I think we can at least agree the parody is not actually a picture of this Alan Dershowitz or a portrayal of his actions. Therefore, it does not belong directly in that category. It should go in a more specific subcategory Category:Parody of Alan Dershowitz or the like, which can then be linked indirectly from Category:Alan Dershowitz. That way Wikimedia Commons keeps a certain bare minimum of dignity without being overly censorious toward those looking it up by the name.
I think that many of us (myself especially) are quite careless about setting categories, and there are plenty of oddities like Category:Disease incidence United States maps within Category:Disease incidence maps of the United States which are in need of fixing. It is a great pity that two people who actually care about getting the categories straightened out would spend their time opposing one another. Mike Serfas (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

I am not happy with how this situation is being presented. To present it in this way is to fall into the trap Drork has set. This is not a straightforward argument between me and Drork, there are a large number of editors who are involved and have been more active than me in changing the categorisation of images rather than focussing on trying to discuss it. Drork has simply chosen to try to harass me with constant accusations about misusing my admin rights and his paranoid suggestions of me being part of a conspiracy to try to dissuade me from trying to deal with some of disruption he has been causing.

For example, quite recently, Drork removed {{Dr}} notices from images where the deletion request was still ongoing and then continued to remove them after I reinstated them and explained why they should remain. He used the Category:Alan Dershowitz talk page as a soapbox and complained when I deleted this misuse of a talk page he stated that if File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg remains in the category then admins "must allow people to protest against it". He then complained on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems that I was apparently abusing my admin rights, a claim which lacked any credibility whatsoever. Again, quite recently, due to the failure of a long running campaign to have these images deleted of which he is a prominent figure, he uploaded a number of images as what he described as a "protest" about the existence of these images. Clearly such a "protest" is an inappropriate use of Commons and the "protest" images obviously beyond the scope of the project. As such, I deleted them and Drork's response was to again claim that I'd abused my admin rights.

Drork just simply does not respect the project or its community, as has been clearly demonstrated by his reaction to the failed deletion requests and by his recent threat to involve the media when he ran into difficulties with an unrelated issue.

I would acknowledge that in some instances my actions have lacked transparency because I've expressed my strong opposition to Drork's campaign but it is important to recognise that, not only do we not have an endless collection of uninvolved admins, such a user might not have the understanding of the background to enable them to take the appropriate action, and nor may they wish to become involved because of the harassment that seems to result. It is because I am one of a few admins that has both the background understanding of Drork's long campaign against the Latuff images, and that I am not scared to stand up against him, that he sees me as an obstacle to his campaign and as such an appropriate target. He is trying to do all he can to either force me to not deal with these issues or to simply give up doing so through frustration. Additionally, it would seem that he tries to create as much hassle as possible, so that presumably if he isn't able to convince the community to delete the images he doesn't like by his arguments, he might succeed by frustrating everyone.

What we need, and have probably needed all along, is simply a broader community discussion on the categorisation of these images, without framing it as if it is just a dispute between two users when that isn't the reality of the situation. It is for the community as a whole to decide how we resolve the issue of categorisation, not a panel of three users. Adambro (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it's not a dispute between two users. Let's say there are others on each side. It is, however, a dispute that has been going on for a while, which the community has not been able to resolve. Appointing representatives to settle the issue is not a perfect solution, but it is a novel and bold idea that is worth a try. Surely we don't want this dispute to either go on forever or be resolved by blocking otherwise constructive users, do we? --GRuban (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, this is simply a continuation of your fixed opinion that you are in the right. You need to take a step back now and let others make a final decision. As an admin you should know better than most that the opinion of no single individual is more important than the health of the Commons community. You have presented your arguments very clearly and will have the opportunity to do so again. If you are right, you must have confidence that a neutral panel will uphold your view. If you don't have that confidence, and consider that any neutral proposal is to fall into a "trap", you need to ask yourself why it is you feel that you alone, of all Commons users, are capable of grasping the true situation. The alternative is likely to be a community ban for both of you, as has already been suggested, and block(s) are not out of the question if there is more edit warring. Wide community discussion has been going on for months, and it is the two of you who are leading it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments, in particular my assertion that Drork have acted to try to force me to not participate in Latuff related issues. He has succeeded. I don't contribute to Commons to be subjected to the kind of harassment that Drork has engaged in. Hopefully, eventually, either he will improve his behaviour or the community will deal with him appropriately. As such, I will no longer edit any Carlos Latuff images nor comment on their categorisation. I do though reserve the right to comment in any related deletion requests. I will reverse my reinstatement of the protection of File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg so that it can be clear that the categorisation can be decided by the community as whole. I am tired of this. Adambro (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, if you just walk away who is going to lead the arguments you have championed? You seem to suggest you are giving up and letting Drork have his way. Bear in mind that many users won't care about the issues at all and will go along with almost anything for a quiet life. I urge you not to give up but to support the proposal - which will give your view a fair hearing. It is not right for one side to win by default. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Michael that a panel of three users who haven't got yet involved in this issue could reach further or better than the two users who haven't been able to reach an agreement... but I must agree with Adambro that a broader community discussion would be even better. I don't think a decission taken by just three users should prevent others from categorising caricatures under the category of the person portrayed. --Javier ME (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that a simple consensual process will do here as all previous attempts in the conflicts around this image failed. See this log to see how none of the decisions was broadly accepted afterwards. We cannot allow this to disrupt our community ad infinitum and need a process that is widely accepted and that puts an end to these conflicts. The only alternative I see is a regular poll but I think that MichaelMagg's proposal has more options in solving this and could be indeed the better approach. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It seems clear following several months of pretty bitter argument that the idea of some "community consensus" that can be reached if we all try hard enough is a mirage. This is an issue where there are strong views held on both sides, and not only by Drork and Adambro. Doing nothing and allowing edit wars to continue is not a good option, and neither is blocking individuals. My guess is that there is a significant section of the community that will be prepared to accept either option, provided that it sticks and avoids further edit wars. Hence this proposal. As in a "real" arbitration or court case, the decison will not please everyone but the need to avoid this argument festering is in my view even more important than the fact that some users will inevitably be unhappy whatever the outcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is not an issue between me and Adambro. This is an issue that was discussed several times in large forums. In the most recent discussion, users were ask to decide whether the above mentioned image should be deleted. The majority said no (although there was a significant minority in favor), but there was also a strong voice in favor of changing the categorization of the image. This voice is currently ignored after Adambro returned the situation to what it used to be and locked the page. I don't mind that someone neutral will look into this issue and provide a solution. I don't know who this person might be. Drork (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a search through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg reopen for any matches for "categ" which will I assume give a good flavour of where categorisation was discussed. Categorisation is certainly discussed on a large number of occasions, particularly by you and myself, but I find it hard to see how it can be said to support the removal of File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg from the Alan Dershowitz category without any further discussion as you have suggested. All can be really concluded from the mentions of categorisation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg reopen is that it is an issue perhaps worthy of more attention. This is why, in the absence of any consensus to remove the category either from the deletion request or the image's talk page, I reinstated the categories and protected the page so as to prevent further changes which lacked consensus. I have now since removed the protection so it can be clear that I have not tried to impose my position but recognise that it might need to be protected again even without any further contributions from me. Attempts to establish a consensus on the talk page to remove this image from Category:Alan Dershowitz have consistently failed, the deletion request doesn't demonstrate a consensus to do this either. Adambro (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were people suggested this image should be under "Antisemitic caricatures" or "Anti-Israeli caricatures". This suggestion was rejected due to possible libel suite on behalf of Latuff. There were other expression of discontent with the way this image is categorized. There was absolutely no consensus regarding the current categorization of this image, and since new suggestions were proved impractical, any controversial category should be removed. There is no possibility to open a new discussion on the talk page, because people have just expressed their opinion in a special lengthy and detailed discussion. You cannot expect people to get involved in so many discussions over and over again. As for your removal of the page block - should someone remove the controversial categories, will you revert and block again? Drork (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say there "was absolutely no consensus regarding the current categorization of this image", what was really the case was that there was no consensus as to how the categorisation should be changed. The discussion didn't provide a clear consensus as to how the categorisation should be and so it shouldn't be changed. The fact that there wasn't a consensus about this presumably means that some expressed they were happy with the current categorisation and/or unhappy with the proposed changes. You can't justify removing "controversial" categories where the community haven't come to an agreement about it. What makes them controversial is that some want them removed whilst others don't, so the categories being controversial certainly cannot justify removing them. What you are basically doing is proposing their removal, being unable to get a consensus to do so but then removing them anyway because not everyone has agreed with you. You must realise that this isn't how things work. This has been perhaps caused some of the difficulties with dealing with this issue and is why the page has been protected on numerous occasions because not being able to get consensus to remove categories means they shouldn't be removed. I don't want you, others, or myself to have to be constantly engaged in discussions about this but a fundamental problem is your inability to recognise that where a change is discussed and consensus doesn't emerge to support that change it shouldn't be made. The problem is that despite this, you've continued to make these changes and so get asked to explain yourself, at which point we simply repeat the same old arguments that have continuously failed to find a consensus to support the changes. Until you respect the consensus, or rather lack of it to support your proposed change, this is going to continue to cause problems for all of us.
Regarding the protection of the page, I've already said that I won't be participating in changing this or the categories themselves but should someone remove categories where that action is unsupported by consensus then I would expect someone else to deal with that appropriately which could be by simply reverting it, reinstating the page protection or blocking the user. Adambro (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all Adambro, please try to be more concise. I am not known for writing short messages myself, but still, these discussions go on and on and on, and it is impossible to follow them with such long messages.
  • The only people who participate in this particular discussion are those interested in promoting Latuff's cartoons - either the people who uploaded the images, or lobbied for keeping them whenever someone suggested to delete them or change the way they are displayed. The idea of splitting the discussion into deletion discussion, then undeletion discussion, then discussion about categories, then discussion about unblocking the page, then adding an irrelevant category and discussing its removal (it happened before), is, in my opinion, a kind of method to make these images overly visible. Naturally, those who object the way these images are displayed, get tired and leave. I am the only person who still bother to worry about the damage that these images cause to this project, and I am pretty tired myself.
  • The way the image is categorize now implies, strongly, an endorsement of the view expressed in this drawing. You cannot deny it. Just find any ten people and ask them. You'll see this is how people perceive it. I am not the first to express this concern, and I am not the only one to ask that irrelevant categories be removed to reduce the damage caused by this image. These request are always answered with aggressive rejection.
  • A consensus is needed for categorizing an image. In case there is no consensus - the category drops. In this case there is no consensus. You try to overturn the rule in order to get your way.
  • The only reason this cartoon is here, is to show the scathing nature of Latuff's drawing. This was said explicitly in the deletion discussion. Therefore, there is no use categorizing it under "Alan Dershowitz" or "Male masturbation". You might as well categorize it under "American people", "sperm", "People that Latuff hates", "hobbies", "activities religiously forbidden", "necrophilia" and I can think of many other possible redundant categories. The truth is that only "Latuff" is relevant, nothing else. Drork (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would apologise about the sometimes lengthy nature of my comments but I only say what I consider necessary to demonstrate the basis for making a point in the hope that doing so will mean it I don't need to clarify why I have said something later on. Despite this, I have already on a number of occasions answered some of the points you make. Your point about perceptions for example, so I won't repeat myself so as to prevent these discussions being any longer than needed.
I would again suggest that you don't understand how the idea of consensus works on the WMF projects. The numerous discussions have demonstrated that there is not consensus to remove the categories as you proposed. That means they shouldn't be removed because if we then had a discussion about adding the categories, that same consensus that the categories are appropriate would be very likely to emerge so to remove them without consensus is simply a waste of everyone's time. There is no rules that says if a number of editors suggest a category should be removed but are unable to find consensus to support that action that it should go ahead anyway. If you are able to learn to respect consensus then this problem will be instantly resolved because you won't continue to remove the category without consensus to support that action and nor will you continue with the same old arguments as to why you feel it should be removed because they didn't result in a consensus to support the removal previously. Additionally, if you don't wish to alienate large numbers of users, you might want to avoid suggesting that everyone who discusses these issues is "interested in promoting Latuff's cartoons". I, as I suspect will be the same with many others, am not a fan of Latuff's work, nor am I interested in trying to promote his work. Adambro (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We seem do have a profound disagreement about what a consensus is. A consensus is a status quo to which no one objects, or in a less ideal state of affairs - none of those who object can bring good sound arguments against it. In this case there are people who object the status quo, and they have good sound arguments. Had we taken your approach, anyone could introduce any change anywhere, and claim there is no consensus about reverting it. By the way, I objected this categorization from the very beginning, so no one can say there used to be a consensus at some point.
There seem to be a group of users who protect Latuff's images by monitoring changes made to their pages very closely. This is not an assumption, this is a matter of fact. Rarely have I encountered such close monitoring on a WM project, and it mostly by the same users. As I said, this is a matter of fact. I already stated above the problems that this situation creates. Drork (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that there are a group of users interested in protecting Latuff's images and I would certainly describe myself as one of them. It certainly doesn't make me a fan of the images or Latuff himself. You don't note though that there are also another group of users who seem to be part of a long running campaign to attack these images in any way possible.
Your interpretation of how consensus works is an interesting one. A consensus is not "a status quo to which no one objects" nor a situation where no one can "bring good sound arguments against it". Consensus is a "general agreement" or is "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned". It is not possible to say whether your arguments are sound or not since obviously those who disagree don't think so. You are simply making a proposal, a proposal which seems cannot be said to have been accepted generally or by most of those concerned. There is no consensus to support the removal of the categories so the implication has to be that there is consensus to keep them.
You say that if we take my approach "anyone could introduce any change anywhere, and claim there is no consensus about reverting it". Well, it is true to a certain extent that anyone can change anything and if the undoing of their change is objected to then consensus needs to emerge to support the undoing. Adambro (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page was meant for you two to have this argument all over again. By now you both have very clearly stated you positions, and made it very clear that you won't budge an inch; that's precisely why this proposal has been made, to attempt and solve this dilemma. It would be great if you could comment further on the proposal. If you disagree with it, try and make suggestions improve it. If you made up your mind already, then cast you vote on the support/oppose section above. Developing your arguments further without having a protocol on how to reach a decision and make it stick is simply useless. –Tryphon☂ 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now more formally noted my opposition to the process in its current form and suggested a potential alternative that would allow for greater community input and a focusing on the issues rather than the contributors involved. I do however consider it appropriate that I respond to any comments Drork makes on this page because it could help to clarify this issue. Adambro (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object this issue be reviewed by a person who was not involved in the discussions regarding Latuff's cartoons, and that his decision be final. I cannot come up with a name right now. Drork (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale thread. BTW header links to gallery rather than the category Category:Carlos Latuff. -- User:Docu at 13:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

SVG category names

edit

This discussion started on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, after a request concerning the subcategories of Category:SVG coats of arms : Rename Category:SVG coats of arms - Algeria as Category:SVG coats of arms of Algeria. Rename Category:SVG coats of arms - Argentina as Category:SVG coats of arms of Argentina, et caetera...

These moves are of no use at all since all the SVG cats were named the same way. So what is the reason? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

These SVG cats are named the same way, but I don't think this way is a good way. Categories are usually named on the pattern "Category:Tigers in Spain", not "Category:Tigers - Spain". I think the hyphen should be replaced by an article like "in" or "of" or "from", etc... instead of using the hyphen. Teofilo (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well to name a cat SVG image somthing is also not a good way. But that you did not change. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. What should we use instead of "SVG image something" ? What do you suggest ? Teofilo (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This page was moved from User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/requests where it was wrongly placed. CommonsDelinker is a tool to execute category moves, it is not a place for discussion in any way.--Martin H. (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, CommonsDelinker is a place where people perform some tasks, in particular write requests for that robot. The Wikimedia projects are collaborative projects, and people need to talk with each other on the very place where they are working, not 2 or 3 pages away from there. Teofilo (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Teofilo - a talk page directly associated to the requests page would be good. Ingolfson (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG should be at the end. Like "Flag foobar in SVG format". --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, "Flag of xxx, SVG format". Problem is that in many cases, the first part of the category name (SVG Coats of arms...) are generated by tens of templates, the second part as a parameter to the template. Just horrible and not manageable by standard bots. --Foroa (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I insist on "in". "Category:Tigers in Spain" sounds to me better than "Category:Tigers, Spain". Is it OK to use the SVG acronym ? Should we not write "scalable vector graphics", as we write "United States" and "United Kingdom" instead of US or UK. How about "Category:Flags of Switzerland in scalable vector graphics" ? (I am not sure if capitalization is required : Scalable Vector Graphics ?) Teofilo (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercase "scalable vector graphics" would seem to refer to any vector graphics format (they're all scalable pretty much by definition). The name of the specific XML-based vector graphics format used on Commons is "Scalable Vector Graphics", or "SVG" for short. Yes, it's kind of confusing, though not really more so than the names of any other common graphics formats.
(For comparison, "GIF" stands for "Graphics Interchange Format", which could describe pretty much any image file format. "Portable Document Format" is even more generic. "Portable Network Graphics" isn't much better either, especially as there's nothing in the format that'd actually involve a network. And "JPEG" isn't even the real name of the file format (which is actually named "JFIF"), but simply an abbreviation of "Joint Photographic Experts Group", the committee which developed the standard.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we should use either the acronym or the capitalized version. I remove the lower case version from the proposal list below. Teofilo (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket000 made the following proposal on Category talk:SVG :

I think we should try and make all these sub categories follow a similar naming scheme. Right now we have the following (note the case changes):

  • SVG — <topic>
  • SVG — <Topic>
  • SVG <topic>
  • SVG <Topic>
  • <Topic> (svg)

I may have missed some in the sub-sub-categories. The majority seem like they use "SVG <topic>". Any suggestions? Rocket000 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the principle of starting from the topic, rather than from "SVG". Instead of using parenthesis, a natural use of the grammar of the English language, using prepositions like "in", or "with" has my preference. I am also unsure if we should use acronyms. So I would like to add the following suggestions :
  • <Topic> in Scalable Vector Graphics
  • <Topic> in SVG
  • <Topic> in SVG format
Note that the principle of starting from the topic, and following with the medium is not what is being done in - for example - Category:Cats in art where we find "category:paintings of cats" "Statues of cats" "graffiti of cats", "drawings of cats" instead of "cats on paintings" "cats as statues", "cats on graffiti", "cats on drawings" (but "cats on stamps" is being used, and all these "cats" categories could be changed in the future in order to implement the principle of starting from the topic. (This would also require changing the text on Help:SVG#Naming_conventions where "SVG...<topic>" is recommanded).
Teofilo (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There would appear to be guidance-in-the-making at Commons:Naming_categories. See below, however. Globbet (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

edit

Can I take this back a step? What is the point of any 'SVG by topic' categorisation? Is there extensive 'media type by topic' or 'topic by media type' for other formats? A quick search suggests not much of the former, anyway. Surely <topic> and <media type> are orthogonal concepts and categorisation as 'SVG by topic' would actually make it harder to find files on <topic> that just happened to be SVG? See previous brief discussion at Help_talk:SVG#Categorization. Globbet (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't be dividing up topic categories into SVG and non-SVG, however I still think having a additional category system (that is by format) can be useful. Because of the inherent difference between vectors and raster graphics, it's useful in many cases to browse media that way (especially in cases like maps, heraldry, translatable diagrams, etc. where it makes a huge difference when you're looking to make derivatives). It wouldn't be very useful if we were talking about making categories like "PNG by topic" or "JPEG by topic". Maybe we should change "SVG" to "vector graphics" to help point out that the format itself (which can consist of purely raster images anyway) is not important but it's main feature is? BTW, we also have Category:Pdf files, animation-only categories, and audio-only categories, which are essentially accomplishing the same thing. That reminds me, Category:Pictures and images needs a complete makeover. Rocket000 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's restart.
1. The main thematic categories we are looking at are mainly a subset of a parent category with similar images but with no medium format limitation. So the first rule we should agree upon: The category name should be the same as its parent category with a prefix or suffix.
2. The secondary categories, being the category structure of SVG related categories in Category:SVG, should not be so evolutive and I think that the top level could remain mostly the same. Anyway, renaming them has no significant repercussions on the other categories.
3. Considering that the category is a specialisation of its parent category, it sounds logical that its name receives a suffix, not a prefix.
4. We need a suffix notation that allows to express a particular file format subset category, and although we target here svg formats, in other places, we have similar problems with pdf, audio, video, DjVu, B&W, animated gif, tiff, jpeg, ... We need to find a distinguishing notation, such as a suffix like @svg, ^pdf, ~audio, agif, "DjVu, °jpeg, tiff. Before choosing here, it would be nice to check that the special characters are available on all worldwide keyboards and if those strings return easily a result when using a search facility. The latter discards some special characters such as dots and paranthesises. How this suffix is glued, formatted and packed is to be discussed below ( parenthesises, lower/upper case, syntax)

Comments are welcome in the appropriate subsections. --Foroa (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the principle

edit

To simplify finding SVG files, wouldn't it be easier to modify Mediawiki to categorize all SVG files into a category by MIME type? This shouldn't be too complicated as MediaWiki identifies the MIME type (img_minor_mime). For most applications (with catscan), one such category can be sufficient. -- User:Docu at 00:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the mime type is already stored in a table, it would be more efficient to change the interface/CatScan to use it, rather than to duplicate this into the category table. -- User:Docu at 07:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Catscan does not meet the wikimedia quality and availability standard. But I agree that a simple filter on the category display function that allows to filter out some media types (for example based on MIME type or file extension) would greatly decrease the need of (redundant) parallel categories. --Foroa (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if mediawiki meets Wikimedia standards at all times, but in any case, this doesn't preclude us from relying on it. As yours is an abstract argument without any reference, I'm not quite sure where you intend to go.
The file table and automated categories seem more stable and reliable to me as manually maintained categories. -- User:Docu at 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new version of CatScan outputs the image type. Currently it can't filter for it though:

try http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?language=commons&project=wikimedia&ns[6]=1&ext_image_data=1

You'd have to ask magnus to add it. A thumbnail output option is currently missing as well. For most applications it works much better than the old one. -- User:Docu at 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Catscan is something that the vast majority of commons users would want to get into. The interface is far too daunting. Come to think of it, Mediawiki seems to me to be lacking in navigation facilities at present. We are having this discussion precisely because the category system just does not work all that well. An enhanced, built in, search tool that would find categories and then find their intersections would vastly facilitate the processes of categorisation and searching (making this whole discussion redundant). Globbet (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the suffix format

edit

Agree with all 4 points. Now let's concentrate on the suffix notion (for any and all formats, not just SVG). Before talking about the syntax, let's get the capitalization and abbreviation issues out of the way. I suggest SVG, PDF, GIF, etc. Always capitalized and abbreviated. The reason being that is what they are best known as. Abbreviations should normally be avoided, but in this case it makes the most sense. And calling it (for example) PDF instead of "Portable Document Format" it perfectly acceptable and not considered informal in any way. Adding "format" at the end is also not necessary (and saying "PDF format" is like saying "PIN number" or "ATM machine"). One could also say the we are referring to the file extension instead of the format (Things like JPEG would have to be JPG/JPEG/etc.). "DjVu" is an exception to the all-caps rule.

Ok, now for the notation. Personally, I like parentheses. Simple to use and looks the best (IMHO). A negative of this (potentially) is that it's the same format we use for many other things, either as part of names themselves or as disambiguation terms. Both of these uses relate to the subject itself and are not "meta" characteristics like the file format. The same goes for commas. Many names have commas in them (e.g. "city, country"). Using hyphens is another choice I can live with (but not en/em dashes please, too hard to type on most keyboards), e.g. "category - SVG". Of course brackets aren't an option, e.g. "category [SVG]", due to the wiki link syntax. "category {SVG}" and "category <SVG>" are ugly. @svg, ^pdf, ~audio, etc. are good ideas for searching but would be confusing/inappropriate if we used any of them for the category names themselves, e.g. "category @SVG" - no way. Let's see... there's "category; SVG", "category -- SVG", "category (in SVG)", "category in SVG"... what else? Rocket000 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe @SVG, ^SVG, etc. would be ok once everyone becomes familiar with it, but, in general, I think people will take the symbols as meaning something else like @SVG = "at SVG", or °jpeg = "degrees jpeg? what?", or "DjVu = "someone forgot to close those quotes". Rocket000 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a wider perspective, I don't think we really need a file format extension specification but a wider functional content oriented specification, as comes clear from other discussions (Black and white pictures for example). File extension specifications have other drawbacks too, suchs as:

  • SVG: what if another scalable vector format , other than SVG, becomes supported here
  • Ogg: how to distinguish movies from sound ? What if mp* becomes supported ?
  • gif: how to filter animated gif from normal gif

I think that a content oriented notation like this could be more generic:

Other cases to be considered: spreadsheets, programs, formulae (Tex sequences), ...

Templates with the same syntax could be made and added to the specific images for later search and automated bot recategorisation (or additional filtering on the category displays. --Foroa (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. We shouldn't use file extensions. We should use labels that highlight the reason for separation; formats themselves aren't really important. Even right now, there's cases where extension oriented categories include/exclude things we didn't intend to be, but there's certain issues with the ones above. (And now I'm going to contradict myself...) For one thing, there are important differences in file formats at least in terms of reusability and accessibility, e.g. I currently ignore TIFFs and PDFs because they are very inconvenient to me (this includes anything I have to download just to preview, but for others it could mean downloading new software too). I would hate to have a once useful category be swamped with these. There are also some multi-"content" formats. You already mentioned the OGG and GIF ones, but here's some other ones: PDFs can embed vector graphics and practically anything else. They can be all text or all images. SVGs can include raster graphics. There are some animated SVGs here, but the MediaWiki thumbnail isn't animated (most browsers support them now, you need to view the file directly to see it move). Who knows the future. And then there's the maintenance side. Someone looking to restore an image may want to browse by TIFFs only. Someone looking to convert PDF books into DjVu may want just PDFs. But these aren't just for us editors since our "readers" are more interactive than a encyclopedia's readers. People usually come here to find an image to use, not just look at.
Basically, I think trying to make such broad rules may be too great a task for us right now. I don't want to lose focus on the SVG thing which desperately needs help. We should keep the bigger picture in mind, but concentrate on SVGs vectors and get that in shape to see how it works and then possibly extend it to other areas. Since this is a media repository, I think it's ok to be a little "meta" minded when it comes to naming categories. Meaning that there's nothing wrong with having a category called "Drawings of X" or "X sound files", in the same way Wikipedia calls some pages "List of X". They wouldn't say "Article of X" in the same way we wouldn't (or shouldn't) say "Files of X" or even "Images of X" because it's self-explanatory, but that doesn't mean that the subject should always take precedence. More importantly, by using natural language their meaning becomes apparent instantly. Who's going know what "(f:stext)" means without looking it up? I know that's just an example, but I'm having trouble coming up with something similar that works as well as the plain old names we have now. We just have to get them all following the same conventions. Rocket000 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale thread: given the many interesting ideas brought up in this discussion, a proposal should be drafted and presented. -- User:Docu at 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tickets of rail transport in Argentina

edit

This should be renamed to Category:Rail tickets in Argentina to match all the other categories of rail tickets that Commons has. See the sub-sub categories of Category:Rail transport tickets. --Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support --ŠJů (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the root category name it should be renamed to Category:Rail transport tickets in Argentina --Foroa (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense, but the only sub-cat that follows that naming is Category:Rail transport tickets in the United States. Thinking about it would support changing the "in <country>" to "of <country>", as tickets for travel in one country may be photographed in another country. Indeed for international services, tickets issued in country 1 may be valid for travel in country 2 and may be very different in design to tickets issued in country 2. In order of preference, I would support renaming all the categories to one of the following schemes (using Argentine as an example)
  1. Category:Rail transport tickets of Argentina
  2. Category:Rail tickets of Argentina
  3. Category:Rail transport tickets in Argentina
  4. Category:Rail tickets in Argentina
My knowledge of Commons processes is so out of date that I don't know whether proposing this here will suffice or if I have to do it more formally? Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that in case of portable things is more suitable to use "of". --ŠJů (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would better "railway tickets" (see Railway tickets in India) than "rail tickets". "Rail transport tickets" is accaptable too, but needlessly long, and it would better to not mix tram (streetcar) or underground (metro) tickets with classical railway tickets. --ŠJů (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about everywhere, but in places like London tickets for trams and the underground can be identical in form to those for mainline railways. But if people want them separate then maybe specific tickets could be subcategories of rail transport tickets. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in Prague and its surroundings tickets of Prague Integrated Transport (extended Prague city transport) can be used in trains, but they aren't perceived as "railway tickets". Instead them the passenger can choose and use a true railway ticket. I think, the category of railway tickets should be intended for special railway tickets, not for universal (integrated) tickets. --ŠJů (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that generic tickets should be in the Rail transport tickets of... and that railway specific ones should be in a sub-category Railway tickets of... ? If you are, then I will support that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting, all railway tickets should be in "Railway tickets of...". Integrated tickets which are valid in several types of transport should be only in up-categories "Public transport tickets of..." generally. --ŠJů (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so "Category:Public transport tickets of..." would contain integrated tickets (e.g. London travelcards) and the subcategories "Category:Railway tickets of", "Category:Tram tickets of", "Category:Bus tickets of", etc. If I have understood you right this time, then I'm happy with that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread. Consensus is to rename the categories to "Rail tickets of <..>". Please make the corresponding requests at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. -- User:Docu at 20:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Hemp events

edit

This seems to me like effectively a duplicate of Category:Cannabis events. If there is a difference, something on the category pages needs to make it clear. - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that "Cannabis" is the drug and "Hemp" (also Industrial Hemp) is the industrial low-THC-level plant.
Cannabis Events usually deal with the legalisation of Marihuana while Hemp Events are usually deal with what you can create out of Hemp (e.g. choclate with hemp flavour, clothes, hemp seeds as snack, bread made of hemp seeds and lots of other stuff) and the plant as cultural plant through hundreds of years.
I would keep both, because cannabis is not hemp and should may not be mixed.
--D-Kuru (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, if we are making a distinction that subtle, then we should at least say something at the top of each page, so that either category can be found from the other and so that the distinction is clear. But the terminology for the distinction seems very odd to me, since Cannabis isn't particularly a "drug" term (for example, it is the etymological root of "canvas"). If we are going to make that distinction, shouldn't it be something like "marijuana" rather than "cannabis"? Also, a lot of events and groups seem to focus equally on both: for example, Seattle's Hempfest certainly has drug culture origins and elements, but does a lot of work related to medical marijuana and industrial hemp. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear seperation between cannabis and hemp events, because they usually deal with both. But some deal more with one issue than the other. Even Cannabis is not only the drug it is often used for drugs. However I wouldn't call events "Marijuana events".
We could create an new category named "Cannabis and hemp events" to merge moth because many of them deal with both.
--D-Kuru (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a "subtle" difference when you look at an entire culture that must toe the legal lines and the difference between hemp and marijuana could be jail time. Granted the people toeing this line are only paying lip service to it... -Nard the Bard 05:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Marijuana" is specifically a drug term. But cannabis and hemp can both refer to non-drug plants of the species as well. - Jmabel ! talk 10:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Hemp events and Category:Cannabis events. Maybe Category:Cannabis events additionally should be moved to Category:Cannabis events (drugs). I don't know, but i think, not all cannabis drugs are called marijuana. --Diwas (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. No one calls hashish "marjijuana". - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cannabis can actually refer to the genus itself since that is the scientific name so that's why it can be unclear at times if you are referring to the plant in general or only the drug. In one sense it does include hemp. Rocket000 (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed redirect to Category:Cannabis events, with the latter redefined to cover all uses of the plant genus cannabis. With the only content of Category:Hemp events one subcategory, and so much overlap between the two types of events, this seems the right solution. If a lot more clearly hemp-event-specific material appears, the situation could be re-evaluated. Rd232 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this in error. Correct category is at category:Recreation in South Africa --NJR_ZA (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(Roman bridges series of discussion)

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

Category:Ancient Roman bridges

edit

I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:

Just a procedural question: have you tried to follow the steps outlined at the top of this page? --rimshottalk 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not for his original requests, see PS below. The CFD procedure has been corrected and followed since yesterday. --Foroa (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created all the subpages now and also consulted the guy who had a strong opinion on this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, a more clear reformulation of your request:
Rename Category:Tiberius bridge in Rimini (talk) to Category:Ponte d'Augusto (Rimini) (0 entries moved, 225 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Roman bridge, Mérida (talk) to Category:Puente Romano (Mérida) (0 entries moved, 51 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Roman bridge, Córdoba (talk) to Category:Puente Romano (Córdoba) (0 entries moved, 458 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Roman bridge, Trier (talk) to Category:Römerbrücke (Trier) (0 entries moved, 89 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Ponte Quattro Capi (Rome) (talk) to Category:Ponte dei Quattro Capi (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
  • While I tend to be very tolerant for local names, for bridges that tend to be often on language, cultural and country borders, that often changed in history, English names are definitively better as they create less conflicts. And this is anyway the Commons main rule. This does not imply automatically that the En:wiki can be taken as a reference for correct names.
  • Especially in Spain, with its four official languages and its many borders, a generic English name such as Roman bridge is a real blessing. Trier too, with its important role in the Roman, Frank, French and Luxembourg history, benefits from more international names.
  • The current names are according to the commons rules and I definitively try to avoid renames once a compromise (and peace) is found and unchallenged since several years. --Foroa (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the exact Commons rule you refer to. Actually, there is no ongoing naming conflict on any of these bridges, which makes your actions even more mystifying. The renaming request of mine is merely meant to give consistency to the naming scheme of Roman bridges. Since Colin O'Connor 1993 monograph, the main English reference on Roman bridges, uses the local names such as Puente Romano, Ponte di Tiberio, and since the general rule on all Wikipedias is to rely on published scholarly resources, your contention to use 'English' names is actually close to original research. These are not even used by English authors. Finally, you are also still avoiding any discussion on why you refuse to use the widely employed brackets, nor did you justify your removal of Ponte Quattro Capi. Personally, I find these subjective interpretations of Common rules rather irritating, and I would like to hear some qualified opinions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The names: English names are to be preferred but only a reference when they are referenced as such in widely available reference works such as Encyclopedia Brittanica or Encarta. In the case of bridges, there seem to be very few bridges referred as such. A second option is to use an English generic name when possible, typically for generic names, such as Roman bridge. A third option is the local name, and in that case, the only logical name is the official local name as is displayed on the bridge and on the maps of the city; it makes no sense to give them a name in the local language that is different from the local name, even if historically incorrect.
The format. Commons format rules are quite wide and indeed open for interpretation. In general, I try not to interfere with the local naming habits that tend to converge to some uniformity at the local level, but indeed show differences when looking at the international level.
In terms of format, I would say that here are the priorities I see
  • "yyy bridge in/of xxx" This is by far the preferred Commons format, but as the in/of/from often creates problems, we see that an upcoming de factor standard is "yyy bridge, xxx" where xxx is the place. Indeed, the latter avoids not only the in/of/from problem, it is easily extensible for places that need disambiguation terms.
  • another format we see often is "yyy bridge (qualifier)". The qualifier is typically stating what the object is.
But as I stated, there are many variant possible and I will certainly not move categories for such details, especially when the local naming consistency is strong, such as in Italy. --Foroa (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Foroa, you make strong claims of how things are done at Commons in this or that way all the time, but where is your evidence? Why don't actually cite the relevant Commons rules to prove your views? Right now you give the impression of following your own idiosyncratic rules.
With only 1,5 million entries as opposed to 8-10 million for Wikipedias, you should be aware that citing Encyclopedia Britannica for verification is in many cases logically impossible.
And on what grounds do you continue to refute the naming convention of the specialist literature I gave you (O'Connor, Galliazzo)?
And, if you like, we can do a comprehensive search whether "yyy bridge in/of xxx" or "yyy bridge, xxx" or, as it is, "yyy bridge (xxx)" is the common naming standard.
You, as an administrator, are here not to make rules, but to follow them. If there is a standard, let's follow it; if not, not. All your "upcoming standards" speculation falls between these categories and is thus totally out of place here. So, I would ask you to give for every and each of your claims evidence. I already did long ago the same with the specialist reference. I am on the verge of bringing up he topic again on the main page, if you cannot substantiate your arguments. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ps:Please stop false accusations. On your referenced delinker request, it is clearly stated:

Warnings Note: Please do not request name changes that you know may be controversial (this includes, for example, renaming locations into a different local language - even if "that is the official name used there"). Such move requests should be undertaken via {{Move}} or COM:CFD instead, to allow objections - if any - to be made on the talk page. All moves have to follow the language policy for the category namespace.

So it is normal that your request was declined and that trying to slip move requests several times in the delinker request page made no sense. Despite the fact that it was suggested by other people, you did not introduce a formal move or CFD request. Discussion went on on Category_talk:Tiberius_bridge_in_Rimini and on my talk page. --Foroa (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale thread. -- User:Docu at 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tiberius bridge in Rimini

edit

I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:

  • While I tend to be very tolerant for local names, for bridges that tend to be often on language, cultural and country borders, that often changed in history, English names are definitively better as they create less conflicts. And this is anyway the Commons main rule. This does not imply automatically that the En:wiki can be taken as a reference for correct names.
  • Requester prefers "Ponte d'Augusto", no doubt with very good reasons. He named and wrote the en: and de: wiki articles, so those set has to be considered as one single reference (and not three as suggested).
  • Given that the majority of wikipedia's (all the roman countries) refer to the Tiberius bridge (de:Ponte d'Augusto (Rimini), en:Pons Augustus (Rimini), , fr:Pont de Tibère, it:Ponte di Tiberio), the Italian wikipedia where the bridge is located, nor the Spanish or French wikipedia don't even mention a potential other name resembling "Ponte d'Augusto", I see no sufficient ground to rename the category to "Ponte d'Augusto".
  • It would be not very clever to rename a bridge to an Italian name that is different from the name used by the citizens of the city.
  • The current name is according to the commons rules and I strongly oppose any move to an Italian name unless there is a consensus for it and the Italian name is proven as the official used one. --Foroa (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current name is not in accordance with the Commons rules since a) the additional "in Rimini" is rather commonly expressed as "(Rimini)" and b) the English name, being a proper name, should be in any case "Tiberius Bridge". However, this name is not common in the scholarly works, which prefer either "Ponte di Tiberio" or "Ponte d'Augusto" (see O’Connor, Colin (1993), Roman Bridges, Cambridge University Press, pp. 84f., ISBN 0-521-39326-4). These are also the official Italian names (see Galliazzo, Vittorio (1994), I ponti romani. Catalogo generale, Vol. 2, Treviso: Edizioni Canova, pp. 108, ISBN 88-85066-66-6). So please stop obstructing progress on the work on Roman bridges for purely personal reasons. 10:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
For the name, see Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Current_requests/2009/06/Category:Ancient_Roman_bridges
For the format: I am under the impression that there is in English quite some mixup between title cases and proper names, as you can read in en:Title-case#Places_and_geographic_terms. Especially generic terms are quite mixed up. Moreover, those habits (as the rules are not very clear and solid), are leaning to the culture of the US and Germany, but not so much in other countries. In the US and Germany, one will find often Xxx Castle, while in other countries you will find Xxx castle, where castle is quite rightly to me, a generic term. All this to explain I don't waste my time executing moves that change case in one direction or in the other, until there is somewhere a clear and unambiguous rule for the title/proper noun case. I often check the use of the title case in the articles and very often they are incoherent with the title, meaning that the title case is often confused with the proper name. So there is nor Iron simple rule that specifies if one has to write the one or the other. Just look in en:Category:Churches in Sweden and Category:Churches in Skåne: if they are so inconsistent, it just proves that we have a problem with the rule (or its interpretation) in the first place, not with its implementation. Anyway, if you would use Roman Bridge as category/article name, to be consistent, you have to write al the times Bridge with capital in the text when you refer to the bridge, which is obviously not done.
To the best of my knowledge, on Commons, there is no simple comprehensive rule for capitalisation (besides the unfortunate "No Title Case rule"). --Foroa (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ps:Please stop false accusations. On your referenced delinker request, it is clearly stated:

Warnings Note: Please do not request name changes that you know may be controversial (this includes, for example, renaming locations into a different local language - even if "that is the official name used there"). Such move requests should be undertaken via {{Move}} or COM:CFD instead, to allow objections - if any - to be made on the talk page. All moves have to follow the language policy for the category namespace.

So it normal that your request was declined. Discussion went on on Category_talk:Tiberius_bridge_in_Rimini --Foroa (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale thread. -- User:Docu at 17:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman bridge, Mérida

edit

I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:

  • While I tend to be very tolerant for local names, for bridges that tend to be often on language, cultural and country borders, that often changed in history, English names are definitively better as they create less conflicts. And this is anyway the Commons main rule. This does not imply automatically that the En:wiki can be taken as a reference for correct names.
  • Especially in Spain, with its four official languages and its many borders, a generic English name such as Roman bridge is a real blessing. Trier too, with its important role in the Roman, Frank, French and Luxembourg history, benefits from more international names.
  • The current names are according to the commons rules and I definitively try to avoid renames once a compromise (and peace) is found and unchallenged since several years. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale thread, no futher action required. déja vu? -- User:Docu at 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman bridge, Córdoba

edit

I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:

  • While I tend to be very tolerant for local names, for bridges that tend to be often on language, cultural and country borders, that often changed in history, English names are definitively better as they create less conflicts. And this is anyway the Commons main rule. This does not imply automatically that the En:wiki can be taken as a reference for correct names.
  • Especially in Spain, with its four official languages and its many borders, a generic English name such as Roman bridge is a real blessing. Trier too, with its important role in the Roman, Frank, French and Luxembourg history, benefits from more international names.
  • The current names are according to the commons rules and I definitively try to avoid renames once a compromise (and peace) is found and unchallenged since several years. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale thread, no further action required. Looks like a copy of some other discussion. -- User:Docu at 16:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman bridge, Trier

edit

I am currently ordering the Ancient Roman bridges. Unfortunately, User:Foroa has several times refused to move my proposed categories without proper explanation. He is invited to give reasons for obstructing progress on the renaming of these categories below. Specifically, it needs to be clarified whether the naming scheme for bridges should run bridge name, local name or bridge name (local name). En detail:

  • While I tend to be very tolerant for local names, for bridges that tend to be often on language, cultural and country borders, that often changed in history, English names are definitively better as they create less conflicts. And this is anyway the Commons main rule. This does not imply automatically that the En:wiki can be taken as a reference for correct names.
  • Especially in Spain, with its four official languages and its many borders, a generic English name such as Roman bridge is a real blessing. Trier too, with its important role in the Roman, Frank, French and Luxembourg history, benefits from more international names.
  • The current names are according to the commons rules and I definitively try to avoid renames once a compromise (and peace) is found and unchallenged since several years. --Foroa (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale thread, no consensus among the two participants. -- User:Docu at 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2009/06&oldid=188039785"