Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2013/03
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 March 2013
Reasons for discussion request: This is a gallery page, so the content of this page should be moved to Inspiration Mars, to separate the gallery page from the category page.
--65.92.180.137 03:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Done --Foroa (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This is closed. I'm obsessed with closing stuff --moogsi (blah) 22:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no "The Tree Play School" -See the website: http://www.treehouseplaygroup.net/ Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 17:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Empty category 83.204.177.23 21:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, delete. (13 files when I created the category 5 years ago, but they have been deleted in august or september 2009 — and won't come back soon : PD-old in 2019 only). Chaoborus (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- No need to bring empty category to CFD, just delete it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by JMabel --moogsi (blah) 06:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There should not be a full stop at the end of the category name. Leyo 23:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- This question does not seem to be helpful. You'd better explain your move, i.e. why you think this person has a full stop in the name. --Leyo 09:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- That is how his name is spelled. See external links at the bottom of the article. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- My (limited) understanding is that it shows the name is, or used to be, short for something, perhaps "Aertsen". It's just how it's spelled --moogsi (blah) 19:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's right. It's short for Aertszoon meaning ‘son of Aert’. Because it's an abbreviation it's spelled with a full stop. Often this is overlooken and the full stop is dropped, but here I have found only one example so far where this is the case (see B. de Klerck, 'Short-sighted? Rijckaert Aertsz Portraying the Virgin in a Painting by Frans Floris', Oud Holland 124 (2011), p. 65-80). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for this explanation :) --moogsi (blah) 04:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's right. It's short for Aertszoon meaning ‘son of Aert’. Because it's an abbreviation it's spelled with a full stop. Often this is overlooken and the full stop is dropped, but here I have found only one example so far where this is the case (see B. de Klerck, 'Short-sighted? Rijckaert Aertsz Portraying the Virgin in a Painting by Frans Floris', Oud Holland 124 (2011), p. 65-80). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- This question does not seem to be helpful. You'd better explain your move, i.e. why you think this person has a full stop in the name. --Leyo 09:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Category name is correct --moogsi (blah) 04:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
"The Last Supper" seems more natural for this and its subcats. moogsi (blah) 02:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. There is no need to change the category name at all. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well there is w:Last Supper so I guess it's fine. Stuff like "Mosaics of Last Supper" just sounds weird to me --moogsi (blah) 05:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP: Six of one, half a dozen of the other, no reason to change anything. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Clearly I'm the only person who thinks the subcategories look weird :) --moogsi (blah) 19:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Should be renamed to "Otto I Wittelsbach" or something similar. "Otto III of Bavaria" is used for someone else. Torsch (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Support rename per nom. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Otto I Wittelsbach by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 17:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I was unsure if "concept" fell under "proposed", so I created this category, but I'm completely fine with it being removed since it's been verified that "proposed" is the cat I should've used in the first place. Nom request by author, general housekeeping. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Merged to Category:NASA proposed or planned aircraft. --rimshottalk 23:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Move the category to Category:Ganesha Temple, Ganpatipule. "Ganesh Swayambhu Temple" is not the name of it. Swayambhu means self-manifested and hence it is just known by this name. Also, there are several temples in India, of Ganesha and others, which claim to be swayambhu. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support rename per nom. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ganesha Temple, Ganpatipule. --rimshottalk 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Empty category, with all files deleted following creation of a replacement file. --xensyriaT 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support: No-one would object to using {{Speedy}} with this explanation --moogsi (blah) 16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 20:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Please delete, I made this category in error. Jim Derby (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 01:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Empty category. TBrandley (what's up) 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Then it should be an uncontroversial deletion & doesn't need to be discussed here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by JMabel --moogsi (blah) 08:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Leicestershire is an inland county so has no coasts. S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 05:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Leicestershire is an inland county so has no beaches. S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 05:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of this disused category is unclear. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 06:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
delete mispelled category - I moved one file to Category:Health in Suriname - now empty and not needed Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem, delete this category :-)
Rob K. aka pa3ems - erfgoedfotografie 10:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Created by me in error about the correct registration of the aircraft, files are now in Category:N20MD (aircraft). --Julian H. (talk/files) 12:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just use {{Speedy}} with this explanation to get the category deleted --moogsi (blah) 12:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks, this can be closed then. --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 15:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Category created by mistake, unused, please delete it. (Right category: Royal Regalie) Balou46 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
bitte löschen , ist doppelt Carsten Krüger (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The Category:Dominion Hotel (Toronto) is also historic. So why should this category have pride of place, and not be named Category:Dominion Hotel (Vancouver)? Geo Swan (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree Category should be moved to Category:Dominion Hotel (Vancouver). Fungus Guy (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Category moved to Category:Dominion Hotel (Vancouver) for disambiguation. Fungus Guy (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems superfluous. "Gramophone records" is its subcat: this is the term for any flat disc with a modulated groove (see w:Gramophone record). I'm pretty sure that this term is the broadest one that can be applied to this type of audio storage. moogsi (blah) 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 21:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Surely all media related to Cain and Abel are "in art", as they're mythological figures. Suggest an upmerge into "Cain and Abel". moogsi (blah) 20:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Support --Foroa (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)- Support - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I did look at their dad, who also has an "in art" category, and there is one file: someone pronouncing the name. So not ALL media, just a big majority :) --moogsi (blah) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support makes sense to me. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Done: I just went ahead and did this. Perhaps there will be a need to split it up again in the future, but it's not fortcoming --moogsi (blah) 00:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete old photos of Rory from 2008 Lukecford (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Discussion of photo deletions belongs in a different place (see Commons:Deletion requests). Please explain (when you nominate them for deletion, according to the correct process) why you think the photos should be deleted. The fact that they are "from 2008" is certainly not a reason to delete them. Keep category, there isn't even a request here to do otherwise. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rory Uphold at Cinema City Film Festival 1.jpg
Replaced by Category:Elche C.F. Froztbyte (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support delete cat per nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Someone uses this category as an album for private pictures. Narayan (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support delete with prejudice. not notable. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted --moogsi (blah) 00:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Should be renamed to Category:Wittnau, Aargau because of another muncipality with the same name, see Category:Wittnau (Breisgau). Steak (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Wittnau, Switzerland and disambiguated by User:NeverDoING. --rimshottalk 14:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
disputable content RomanM82 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- If the problem is with the content of the category, please deal with the content (e.g. nominate it for deletion), rather than the category itself --moogsi (blah) 14:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
What Moogsi said -FASTILY (TALK) 21:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this category useful? Hedwig in Washington 
(Woof?) 15:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete: No, IMO --moogsi (blah) 20:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 21:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
All of the images in the category are already categorized by clothing style (crop top, bikini, halter top, etc), so "skimpy clothing" is both redundant and a value judgment. It mostly seems the purpose of this is to serve as a holding pen for photos of scantily clad women. —howcheng {chat} 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- 'delete'. agree. not encyclopedic or defining. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: per nomination, subjective and vague --moogsi (blah) 18:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely miscapitalized, also subjective and of little value in current form... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- A useful category for graphic artists, but poorly described looking at what is going in there. Penyulap ☏ 11:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nom and other above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--FAEP (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Marked as candidate for speedy deletion ({{Speedy|Blanked, empty and unused.--~~~~}}) since the voting here is unambiguously.--FAEP (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Not only the categry, but all of its contents need to be deleted. They are part of a campaign of publicity by the eponymous Kelly Denis, an editor who has been indeffed on en WP. Regrattably I have no idea how to make a bulk nomination of all this set of promotional material for deletion. I hope an experienced Commons editor will do this on my behalf, whether they agree with the request or not. I submit that all of these pictures are out of scope, having no value save to Kelly Denis himself as a vehicle to promote himself. Timtrent (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kelly Denis. --Foroa (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, as empty after the contained files have been deleted. --rimshottalk 21:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I created this category by mistake by getting the name wrong. The correct name is "St Cross Church, Oxford". I have now created a category in that name. I therefore nominate Category:Holy Cross Church, Oxford" for deletion. Motacilla (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 14:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
All photos moved to Category of Correct name Vermont Avenue (Washington, D.C.), current category should either be deleted or turned into a disambig as there is a Vermont Avenue (Los Angeles) Mjrmtg (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- delete cat as ambiguous, no need for a DAB.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
{{bad name|Category:DeWolf Hopper}} Dobie80 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Moved --moogsi (blah) 00:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
delete - empty category RomanM82 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted --moogsi (blah) 00:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The same car can be found in Category:Škoda Rapid (2012). 2012 ist correct, 2011 is wrong year for this car. OnkelFordTaunus (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Has been corrected quickly. Thank you, User Foroa. OnkelFordTaunus (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 21:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
This category should be deleted. "New England" is an unoffical region of Australia, there is no government, there would be no authority over road signs. The areas comprising "New England" fall under the authority of New South Wales. Fry1989 eh? 03:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons namespace Ciluxo (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Closed, no reason for discussion given. --rimshottalk 20:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Propose merging Category:Photographs by Doug Kerr (~600 images) with Category:Photos by Dougtone (~900 images). Both are categories for the same Flickr user's images: [1] --GrapedApe (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom. – TMF (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify, I'm supporting the merge of "... Dougtone" into "... Doug Kerr". A cursory glance at Category:Photographs by photographer shows that the categories bear the photographer's actual name, not an alias (such as "Dougtone"). – TMF (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom; would prefer that the merged category be located at Category:Photographs by Doug Kerr. Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Photographs by Doug Kerr. Actually, it was enough to remove the category Category:Photos by Dougtone, as all of the photographs were doubly categorized. --rimshottalk 21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Should be disambig., since there are:
- Francesco Pozzi (1704-1789), plasterworker (?)
- Francesco Pozzi (1750–1805), engraver
- Francesco Pozzi (1779–1844), wax artist and sculptor
I don't know which name their categories should bear, therefore I'm asking. --Flominator (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- All 3 images relate to #3. Note "stuccoist" is what #1 was. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Created category for #3 and #1. Didn't know which "job category" to add for Category:Francesco Pozzi (1704–1789), though. Ideas? --Flominator (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Found Category:Stucco artists. Done --Flominator (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Found Category:Stucco artists.
- Created category for #3 and #1. Didn't know which "job category" to add for Category:Francesco Pozzi (1704–1789), though. Ideas? --Flominator (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- All 3 images relate to #3. Note "stuccoist" is what #1 was. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguated, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 21:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This category should be deleted. "New England" is an unoffical region of Australia, there is no government, there would be no authority over road signs. The areas comprising "New England" fall under the authority of New South Wales. Fry1989 eh? 03:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted. Nonsense Category. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The categories should be moved to Category:Odisha per COMMONNAME. In English Wikipedia, the article was moved to Odisha per discussion at Talk:Odisha, and subsequently categories were moved to Odisha as well. All sub-categories under the main should be moved to Category:Odisha. --Amartyabag (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support: Per the article on en.wiki and [2] etc. "Orissa" categories can become redirects because it is historically and will be known commonly this way for years to come --moogsi (blah) 02:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Vssun (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Moving as requested since there's no dissent (actually a merge, since the Odisha category is already populated). ghouston (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Empty category. Leyo 23:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Some informations had been added. In the future people will find some more historical documents directly in the category ... --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 13:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
On it's own, the word 'novel' is ambiguous. When it's in the next category up, with all the other categories and creative adjectives to describe barnstars, the word novel takes on the meaning of 'unique' rather than 'book' I would suggest something like 'Barnstars based upon fantastic Novels' would describe the category. --Penyulap ☏ 11:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Fantasy novel barnstars? More difficult to misinterpret --moogsi (blah) 12:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Should be renamed "Ancient Pueblo peoples" — "Pueblo" should capitalized and "peoples" due to the fact that this category include diverse groups over time Uyvsdi (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support rename to Category:Ancient Pueblo peoples --moogsi (blah) 23:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support rename per nom. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom: a quick Google search suggests that capitalization of "Pueblo" is the norm. Ammodramus (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support per arguments above. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Done as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
should be Animatronics - I'll create / move photos if noone has objection Mjrmtg (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Move requested at User:CommonsDelinker/commands. --rimshottalk 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Animatronic. --rimshottalk 20:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The category used for the images that are already in Category:ISS Crew Earth Observations. All photos from there that do not depict earth are in Category:Views of the International Space Station. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- So much for discussion. It should be recreated. It's a parent for Category:ISS Crew Earth Observations and any images from (not of) the ISS looking the other way or at approaching spacecraft.. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't a parent of that category, if I remember that correctly. The only content was the Chris Hadfield category. Not a single image was directly in the cat. But it may make sense to put it into the cat-tree the way you describe it. Why it was deleted without discussion - I don't know.
- That would then be:
- ISS
- Views from the ISS
- ISS Crew Earth Observations
- ISS Crew EVA Observations*
- ISS Crew Docking Observations*
- Views from the ISS
- ISS
- *) or something similar, might make sense because these are also quite a few images I think. All three would then also be in "Activities on the International Space Station". --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of Nikon cameras up there which the crew use to photograph the Earth, however, there are probably a lot more photographs taken by equipment on the ISS. To look at the images, they will look the same at first glance. If a category describes 'crew EO' then another should exist for the ISS automated photography, or the category could describe both 'EO from the ISS'. Penyulap ☏ 11:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:ISS Crew Earth Observations. --rimshottalk 21:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
spelling mistake, though IUCN lists the species as Cyrtodactylus malcomsmithi the taxon is actually Cyrtodactylus malcolmsmithi (see type description and every other source not based on IUCN) Rbrausse (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thgoiter's approach would be {{Invalid taxon category redirect|.. - imho a plausible solution. Rbrausse (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Cyrtodactylus malcolmsmithi. --rimshottalk 21:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this category? Is says it a user category, but it is not. Leyo 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It appears that User:A1 Aardvark has created a series of categories that contain only his or her images (I haven't looked at all of them, but the first ten I spot checked all were). They are all tagged {{User category}}. The template does not require that the user name be used, so I think they are technically OK as is. It would, of course, be better if they were tagged {{User category|A1 Aardvark}} both because it would sort them correctly in Category:User_categories and identify them individually. We might even consider reworking the template so that it required the name of the user. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am not opposing such categories, but not with names that do not identify them as user categories. See also Commons talk:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Notability and the naming of user categories. Hence, rename the category. --Leyo 16:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- While I agree completely with you that the name is not good, the Talk page you cite is not policy, so this is technically OK. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think that it should be clear even without a specific policy that is must be clear from the name whether a category is a user category or a normal content category. I am aware that it's not relevant here, but in de.wikipedia all user categories must be named Kategorie:Benutzer:…. --Leyo 17:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Again, I agree, but without a policy on the subject, you can't enforce it except by strongly suggesting it to users. As it stands, we cannot delete this category just because we think it very bad practice. I would support a policy change if you wanted to start it rolling. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- We have Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy and I don't think we need a separate page for the matter discussed above. I therefore made a suggestion concerning an addition on its talk page. --Leyo 19:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- While I agree completely with you that the name is not good, the Talk page you cite is not policy, so this is technically OK. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am not opposing such categories, but not with names that do not identify them as user categories. See also Commons talk:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Notability and the naming of user categories. Hence, rename the category. --Leyo 16:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Jameslwoodward and sort key added. --rimshottalk 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Para coordinar el árbol definido y/a clasificar. chacaM ChacaM (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Closed, nothing to discuss, as per Google translate, and only contribution of this user. --rimshottalk 19:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has this category as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economies_by_city Economies should it be changed here? Mjrmtg (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are thousands of categories different on Commons. Most important is that it is consistent across continent, country, region, district and city level. --Foroa (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Foroa, no follow-up. --rimshottalk 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Because the current name is (1) not obvious; (2) does not reflect the history of the region. The name "Halifax Regional Municipality" is opaque to anyone outside the region. Following the principle of least astonishment we should have something like Category:Halifax, Nova Scotia. Second Halifax is one of the oldest cities in North America, but "Halifax Regional Municipality" is recent. I suggest images from before its creation should not be included in this category. The regional municipality amalgamated municipalities that had a separate existence. If there are multiple historical photos taken in those historic municipalities they too merit separate categories. Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would tend to disagree. Most large cities in Canada are the result of amalgamations and annexations over the years, and what you are proposing for Halifax is quite different than the approach we've taken for Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, etc. It's unfortunate that Nova Scotia, in a wasted effort to appease people opposed to amalgamation, chose a name for the new municipality that only a bureaucrat could love and didn't just call the new city "Halifax" like everyone else. While the official HRM name might be opaque to non-Nova Scotians, what's worse is requiring them to have an understanding of the region's history and geography such that they know what media predates or postdates amalgamation and to always know what community it pertains to. At least the name problem can be addressed through explanatory text and redirects. Moreover, do we really need to create to full category structures for all the various communities except where needed (we don't for the former municipalities in Toronto, so why would we for, say, Bedford?), beyond the neighbourhood categories we have on Commons for former boroughs and municipalities that make up Canada's cities. From a categorization perspective, the best approach is to treat Halifax (terrible new name notwithstanding) like any other urban municipality. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree, Halifax RM is the now, just like Etobicoke is now part of the larger amalgamated Toronto. I agree, an ugly name, but as long as Category:Halifax, Nova Scotia redirects here, there should be no issue for non-locals. Fungus Guy (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- On the English Wikipedia, they have recently moved the main article to "Halifax, Nova Scotia" (HRM is now a redirect) on the basis that almost 20 years after amalgamation "Halifax" is the common name for the entire city and generally refers to the whole (not just the old pre-amalgamation municipality). While I still don't agree with the proposal here to be categorizing materials in terms of pre and post amalgamation, there is some logic to following the en.wp lead in this instance. We would keep redirects so someone looking for HRM would still end up in the right place, and we'd add hatnotes to clarify the situation. Thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- No objections, so I made the change on the main category and CommonsDelinker will take care of the subcategories in due course. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- A number of categories have now been moved. Hopefully, this addresses Geo's initial comment about the category names being opaque, and shifts us over to what is now the common name for the urban area, while at the same time avoiding a category structure based on pre and post amalgamation subcategories. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- No objections, so I made the change on the main category and CommonsDelinker will take care of the subcategories in due course. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- On the English Wikipedia, they have recently moved the main article to "Halifax, Nova Scotia" (HRM is now a redirect) on the basis that almost 20 years after amalgamation "Halifax" is the common name for the entire city and generally refers to the whole (not just the old pre-amalgamation municipality). While I still don't agree with the proposal here to be categorizing materials in terms of pre and post amalgamation, there is some logic to following the en.wp lead in this instance. We would keep redirects so someone looking for HRM would still end up in the right place, and we'd add hatnotes to clarify the situation. Thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Halifax, Nova Scotia. --rimshottalk 06:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This category seems to be honouring socketpuppeteer. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's no honour to appear under Category:Sockpuppeteers. This is a maintenance category :) --moogsi (blah) 11:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's empty, from maintenance POV. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
Deleted, still empty and it will stay that way because the user is indef blocked. --rimshottalk 23:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Inacceptable naming for a user category. The pictures might be moved to Category:Pictures taken by Werner100359/Pflanzen und Tiere. Leyo 16:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong support, and also
- --Passerose (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Support, but on Commons, it is Photographs by Werner100359/[see above]. FDMS 4 21:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Should be moved to appropriate names including Username. --WolfD59 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by User:A.Savin. BMacZero (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Moved the other two. BMacZero (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
"Demolished" is close enough in meaning to "Former" to cause confusion, both for categorizers and for users of categories. Hamblin (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is common for buildings left unattended to disintegrate by natural causes and leave only ruins. That would be "Former buildings". "Demolished buildings" should be used for buildings deliberately destroyed by man. My 2 cents. Lionel Allorge (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is a category "Ruins", but it is not a subcategory of "Former buildings". Hamblin (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- What Lionel Allorge said. Former buildings also includes those destroyed by fire, earthquake, storms, bombings, etc. - Eureka Lott 15:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fires, earthquakes, storms, bombings don't demolish buildings? Hamblin (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, they can destroy buildings, but they don't demolish them. Demolition is a deliberate human act. - Eureka Lott 16:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can you cite an authority for that? Hamblin (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did you try reading the Wikipedia article linked above? This isn't a complicated concept. - Eureka Lott 16:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is to the editors at Cambridge. Cambridge Dictionaries Online Hamblin (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Since you agree there is much ambiguity that needs to be addressed, how would you address it? Hamblin (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no interest in debating semantics. Regardless of what we call the category, I think it's useful to separate buildings that were intentionally razed from those that were destroyed in other ways, like Category:Collapsed buildings.
- It is to the editors at Cambridge. Cambridge Dictionaries Online Hamblin (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Since you agree there is much ambiguity that needs to be addressed, how would you address it? Hamblin (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did you try reading the Wikipedia article linked above? This isn't a complicated concept. - Eureka Lott 16:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can you cite an authority for that? Hamblin (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, they can destroy buildings, but they don't demolish them. Demolition is a deliberate human act. - Eureka Lott 16:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The ambiguity I was referring to on the other talk page had to do with the usage of the word "former". It's currently used in more than one way, and it can be confusing. For example, Category:Former buildings is for buildings that no longer exist, but Category:Former post offices covers existing buildings that previously served as post offices. - Eureka Lott 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- And how would you fix that?
- And does "intentionally razed" include criminal acts? Military acts? Hamblin (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- The ambiguity I was referring to on the other talk page had to do with the usage of the word "former". It's currently used in more than one way, and it can be confusing. For example, Category:Former buildings is for buildings that no longer exist, but Category:Former post offices covers existing buildings that previously served as post offices. - Eureka Lott 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I propose renaming "Category:Demolished buildings" as "Category:Purposely demolished buildings". Hamblin (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's got the same problems you outlined above: what if a building burns down and it's not known if it was accident or arson? What if an arms factory is bombed but some houses get destroyed instead? Were those buildings destroyed purposely? --moogsi (blah) 08:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition ← I think this is what Category:Demolished buildings actually wants to be. The key is that using the word "demolition" in the context of buildings has the VERY strong connotation that it was done on purpose ("demolition engineer", "controlled demolition", w:Demolition, etc.) "Demolish", not so much --moogsi (blah) 07:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- You have a point. But I don't really understand the purpose of the category, by either name. Aren't most former buildings destroyed by demolition? Those that aren't must be the minorities, I would say: "Destroyed by nature", "Destroyed by fire", "Destroyed by arson", "Destroyed by war". In that context, "Destroyed by demolition" would seem more natural. Hamblin (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- A pleasant expansion of what started in Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings in New York City. So, we seem to tend to an opinion that "former buildings" are "buildings no longer existing" for whatever causation or reason. As for a former stable converted to a house and dynamited by the Army to contain an urban fire that couldn't be stopped by normal means because an earthquake destroyed the water mains, many subcategories can be created for the time, place direct cause, indirect cause and other circumstances of demise, as appropriate for the purposes of categorization. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it does occur to me that, most of the time, why the building is not there is not relevant to the content of the category, unless there is media of it being destroyed --moogsi (blah) 23:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Anyone else like to weigh in? Please do. Hamblin (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. There's no practical reason to have separate categories for buildings that got destroyed on purpose, buildings that got destroyed by accident, buildings that gradually ceased to exist (e.g. an abandoned building that gradually falls to pieces), etc. File:Grandview Apostolic Church rubble pile from northeast.jpg and the building at the center of File:Sandusky and Main in Mechanicsburg.jpg both got destroyed in 2010, but one was arsoned while the other was demolished by the owner; why shouldn't they be categorised together? If you really care about putting an image in the "correct" category, these categories will cause problems if you know only that the building in question no longer exists. The method of destruction isn't really important (unless the act of destruction is happening when the picture is taken), so let's make it all simpler by merging the former and the demolished, together with anything else that may exist for method of destruction. Note that "Demolished buildings" shouldn't cease to exist; it should be converted into a category redirect, since people will surely try to put images into it. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support It's as I say above: people may look for media of buildings based on whether they exist any more, but the chances of them looking for buildings based on how they were destroyed is extremely slim (99% of the time it has no bearing on the content of the category). If people actually want to find media about demolition, they are better off looking in Category:Building demolition. Other methods of destruction, Category:Damaged buildings. Redirecting "Demolished buildings" to there may be better, because most people won't be aware of the odd quirk of the category system that makes "Demolished buildings" mean "completely demolished buildings". I'm fine with either way, though --moogsi (blah) 20:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- So, we seem to have 3 or 4 in agreement, and I'm not seeing a firm dissent. Contemplating killing not just a cat or a small branch or two, but a moderate sized tree, ought we seek more publicity and opinions, or are we enough? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- We should probably seek more input, but how? Hamblin (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you don't have to throw a stick very far on Commons to find someone who disagrees with you, so I put this here. I think this is a wider issue than this cat and I'd like to know what people think. I expect the consensus on this will be something like, "leave it there, it's not hurting anyone, just rename it if it's confusing". To be honest I didn't see the extent of the "by country" categories - even if there were a 100% solid reason for getting rid of this, it would still be extremely difficult --moogsi (blah) 04:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't there a bot? Hamblin (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- If I understand your assessment correctly, you are suggesting that if “Demolished buildings” is deleted, then all categories that start with “Demolished” must be deleted also, like “Demolished buildings in the United States”, “Demolished churches”, etc. But I don’t think so. Deleting each of them would be a separate project that editors could evaluate individually, if interested. Needless to say, the same reasoning would apply, but that doesn’t mean they must all be done at once. The difficulty of that might indeed be prohibitive, without a bot. Hamblin (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is not technically difficult - I was referring to the difficulty of gaining consensus to make a large change, even if it is justified. Maybe it is not justified and someone has a good counterpoint. And yes, the problem with "Demolished buildings" is necessarily a problem with all of it subcategories, there is no point in debating them separately -moogsi (blah) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- To me;
- demolished buildings are buildings that are completely disappeared, for whatever what reason.
- former buildings refers to the former function that it was holding: many former train stations and town halls became bars, pubs, shop. Hundreds, if not thousands of churches will be reallocated in the coming years.
- Those cats help to separate an era/owner/function, otherwise people tend to merge them all under the currently used name. --Foroa (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- To me;
- It is not technically difficult - I was referring to the difficulty of gaining consensus to make a large change, even if it is justified. Maybe it is not justified and someone has a good counterpoint. And yes, the problem with "Demolished buildings" is necessarily a problem with all of it subcategories, there is no point in debating them separately -moogsi (blah) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is certainly valid to distinguish between buildings that have been repurposed and buildings that do not exist any longer. The problem is that it isn't obvious that "Former buildings" and "Demolished buildings" mean what you mean by them; they are vague terms. Hamblin (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are pointing out the difference between Category:Former buildings and Category:Buildings by former function. When you say the former, most will think of the latter. There is a some confusion over this because the building and the function it has very often have the same name. It's easier to see in cases where they don't - when the museum/school/whatever has a different name from the building, or is in many separate buildings. However, you will often see institutions categorized under "buildings" because most of the time it's hard to see a meaningful difference --moogsi (blah) 18:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If the consensus turns out to be "leave it there, it's not hurting anyone, just rename it if it's confusing", we still have the question of what distinction is intended, and what terms to use to make that distinction clearly. Hamblin (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment I only saw this discussion now. Thank you to those trying to clear up what is currently quite a mess (one that has always frustrated me). My two cents:First, I strongly disagree with the idea that we can deal with the top categories, and let the subcategories be evaluated individually and dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I agree with Moogsi on that point. It doesn't solve the problem if we leave inconsistently named category trees. Whatever is decided should be implemented down the line.
Second, we should not be using Category:Former buildings as a category tree for destroyed/demolished buildings. It is too confusing with categories related to buildings by former function. I would empty it out and redirect it.
Third, I think the category tree for buildings that cease to exist should be Category:Destroyed buildings, as it is somewhat broader in scope than Category:Demolished buildings (I agree that the latter does convey the sense that the building was deliberately destroyed, rather than those buildings destroyed by fire, war, etc.).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good solution. Thank you for the idea. Hamblin (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand the position on Category:Former buildings: you want to get it completely isolated (and split) from Category:Destroyed buildings, or you want it to get completely emptied, in which case I see tens or hundreds of problematic categories, such as the ones in Category:Buildings by former association and Category:Buildings by former function. --Foroa (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Both. But when I talked about it being emptied, I did not mean that we would do the same for Category:Buildings by former association and Category:Buildings by former function. It was due to the fact that Category:Former buildings confusingly links those two subcategory trees to categories pertaining to destroyed buildings. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Let's empty out the images from the Former buildings categories and put them into the Buildings by former association and Buildings by former function trees. Former buildings can become a parent for those two trees, and its subcategories can become parents for the same areas' Buildings by former function and Buildings by former association; for example, Former buildings in New Zealand could become the parent for Former churches in New Zealand. Meanwhile, as I said up above, let's not delete anything in the sense of turning it into a redlink; all of these categories have reasonable names and are likely to be used again. Instead, let's add {{Category redirect}} to the categories that we're deprecating through this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with all of that, except turning Category:Former buildings into a parent category. Ideally Category:Former buildings should exist as a disambiguation category for Category:Buildings by former association and Category:Buildings by former function; if it exists as a proper parent category, people will simply fill it through hotcat with images of demolished or otherwise destroyed buildings. It's clear from this discussion, as well as the current state of the categories, that the term "former building" is widely considered to be synonymous with "destroyed building", and if we leave Category:Former buildings as a real category we will be having this discussion again in three years. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'm in favor of renaming the Category:Buildings by former function tree to Category:Repurposed buildings. I think it would greatly reduce its ambiguity. We could replace a category like Category:Former libraries with Repurposed libraries, reducing the chance of confusing it with Category:Demolished libraries - Eureka Lott 15:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I had neglected this discussion as having become too profound for my frivolous mind, but yes, "Repurposed" seems the proper root for the various branches of this "former purpose" tree. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Destroyed buildings is currently (since 2010) a redirect pointing to Category:Demolished buildings. Should we reverse that? Hamblin (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'm in favor of renaming the Category:Buildings by former function tree to Category:Repurposed buildings. I think it would greatly reduce its ambiguity. We could replace a category like Category:Former libraries with Repurposed libraries, reducing the chance of confusing it with Category:Demolished libraries - Eureka Lott 15:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with all of that, except turning Category:Former buildings into a parent category. Ideally Category:Former buildings should exist as a disambiguation category for Category:Buildings by former association and Category:Buildings by former function; if it exists as a proper parent category, people will simply fill it through hotcat with images of demolished or otherwise destroyed buildings. It's clear from this discussion, as well as the current state of the categories, that the term "former building" is widely considered to be synonymous with "destroyed building", and if we leave Category:Former buildings as a real category we will be having this discussion again in three years. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand the position on Category:Former buildings: you want to get it completely isolated (and split) from Category:Destroyed buildings, or you want it to get completely emptied, in which case I see tens or hundreds of problematic categories, such as the ones in Category:Buildings by former association and Category:Buildings by former function. --Foroa (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good solution. Thank you for the idea. Hamblin (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Correct any errors I have made, but this is where I think we stand:
- All "Demolished buildings" categories are renamed "Destroyed buildings". Category:Demolished buildings is redirected to Category:Destroyed buildings, and subcategories are similarly redirected to their corresponding new categories.
- All "Buildings by former function" categories are renamed "Repurposed buildings". Category:Buildings by former function is redirected to Category:Repurposed buildings, and subcategories are similarly redirected.
- Category:Former buildings becomes a disambiguation category for Category:Buildings by former association, Category:Repurposed buildings and Category:Destroyed buildings (any one of which being what someone looking for "former buildings" could want.
Have I missed anything? Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, that is correct. Hamblin (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion has been open nearly two months, and there seems to be a consensus in support of the above proposal. Would someone with the know-how volunteer to close the discussion (as per Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion) and carry out the changes proposed? Hamblin (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have started the implementation. We should keep the discussion open for a short time, in case there are any issues arising from the implementation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. "Destroyed" is rather a broad term, whereas "demolished" is rather a narrow term. Example is a building is destroyed by fire is unforeseen but a demolition of a building is always foreseen, since it is planned. I can't see why both can't exist. Really this discussion doesn't have a strong consensus, nor does the changes made by Skeezix1000 (talk · contribs) which really one has two people support. Bidgee (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- First, I think you need to reread the discussion if you think I acted on "two people support". Honestly, the lengths people will go to criticize.
Second, no one said demolished=destroyed. In fact, quite the opposite. And nothing stops someone from creating a subcategory later on that is strictly for demolished buildings (as stated above, Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition if we have similar categories for fire, war, etc. or even just Category:Demolished buildings). But the categories right now are an unorganized mix of buildings both demolished and destroyed, and unless someone wants to do an analysis of all the media to determine what was demolished, what collapsed, what was destroyed by fire, etc. we should not have all the content in the more specific category. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- There was only two supports for your proposal above, in fact you should have left it for another Admin since the scope of the proposal was changed by yourself.
- Sorry but all you did was just moved the issue from one topic to another, since we now have demolished buildings (eg. Category:Red Lion Hotel, Wagga Wagga, File:Partly demolished cottage.jpg) within destroyed buildings. I'm not going to fix this mess, I'm leaving it up to the people whom created it. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unbelievable. I really do urge you to read the discussion above, because you clearly have not. And I ask that you try to contribute without insulting people's work and making silly accusations. Seriously, it is possible to communicate your concerns without shitting on others. And, demolished buildings are destroyed buildings. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- WOW, so now you're resorting in insults. I've read the discussion, and again, you've applied your own proposal without getting more support from the community.Again you don't get it, you don't call a partly demolished building (for construction purposes) a partly destroyed building. Though if it was caused by fire, earthquake or a tornado, you would. I'm not fixing something that you've caused yourself. Bidgee (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- First, I don't know what "resorting in insults" means. Not sure why you feel insulted, since you are the one going around saying "I'm not going to fix this mess, I'm leaving it up to the people whom created it", because you seem to feel some need to put down people when you are concerned about what they've done. Asking you to knock it off was not an insult. Second, no one asked you to fix anything, so unclear why you keep repeating that. Third, I never made any proposal. I simply summarized what people had agreed to after two months of discussion - I think the only part that I came up with myself was the use of a DAB page. Finally, yes, a building that is half demolished is half destroyed. Demolition is simply the type of destruction. While we would normally use the word demolition rather than destroyed in some contexts, the word "destroyed" is also correct and the baseline situation has been explained below. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- You told me "And I ask that you try to contribute without insulting people's work and making silly accusations" and then you said "Seriously, it is possible to communicate your concerns without shitting on others", do you see the irony? If you bothered to look at my concerns, you'll note that I was raising the fact that all you did was move the issue, rather then fixing it. Having a partly demolished house in a destroyed category is completely wrong, it wasn't destroyed by fire, earthquake, tornado or a bomb. Hang on, can you make up your mind? "Second, no one said demolished=destroyed" but above you then change your mind "While we would normally use the word demolition rather than destroyed in some contexts, the word "destroyed" is also correct and the baseline situation has been explained below". I'm not going to have files I've uploaded in an inaccurate category and the fact that you've pushed your proposal without any community notice, other then this hidden discussion. Bidgee (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion is not hidden. What would constitute "community notice"? Hamblin (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Which of your files do you feel are inaccurately categorized? Are they by any chance media of demolitions in progress? Hamblin (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hamblin, I'm not sure it's worth engaging Bidgee. He is only interested in telling people how wrong they are. Until he calms down and tries to show that he understands that the others here are just as interested in the best solution possible as he is, I've just stopped reading his stuff. When he is interested in finding a solution rather than laying blame, I'm happy to discuss with him. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- My good faith with you is now non-existent if you think that keeping the bigger mess you've created is ok, rather then fixing it. I've have said, "Demolished buildings" could've remained as a subcat, the main problem was with the "Former". Unlike someone here whom is doing nothing but throwing insults at me, I've taken a stab on a system to use the less then ideal solution Category:Buildings destroyed by type (type is not the ideal word but can you think of one that doesn't make it long and complex?) which would contain buildings that were destroyed by fire, tornadoes, floods, cyclones ect. Though I've come across another category (Category:Damaged buildings and Category:Fire-damaged buildings by country) that clearly should fit in this one, according to Skeezix1000. Bidgee (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Enough of the blame, Bidgee, and please just assume others are as interested as you in coming up with a solution. It's impossible to have a discussion with you when you only want to start with the premise that others are at fault. Having said that, my last comment was uncalled for, as I should never be encouraging people to ignore someone. That wasn't fair, and I apologize for that, and I ought to have worked harder at trying to discern your concern. Onto the substantive issue, then, Category:Buildings destroyed by type is what I also envisioned, and I don't think "type" is the wrong word. I wonder if that category name might, however, suggest that that it is types of buildings, rather than types of destructions, which are at issue? Would Category:Building destructions by type be better? Category:Fire-damaged buildings by country wouldn't necessarily be the same as Category:Buildings destroyed by fire, as the former could involve buildings that survived. However, you are correct that they are linked, and perhaps the latter is a subcategory of the former? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Buildings destroyed by type is a grammatical mess. I'd say Category:Destroyed buildings by means of destruction but someone else may be able to come up with something tighter. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's wrong with Category:Building destructions by type? Ideally, we should try to avoid a category name that includes two variations on the word "destroyed". Having said that, the more I look at Category:Destroyed buildings by means of destruction the more I think it isn't bad.
In terms of subcategories, I am still concerned with, and I think we still need to address the problems with the word "demolition" (and variations thereof) raised by Hamblin below. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is it necessary to have an overarching category for types of destruction? How about having two subcategories -- say,”Buildings destroyed by natural events” and “Buildings destroyed purposely”. Each could be further subdivided if people see a need for that. The first would have subcategories like “Buildings destroyed by storms”, “Buildings destroyed by earthquakes”, etc. The second could have “Buildings destroyed by criminal acts”, “Buildings destroyed by war”, “Buildings destroyed lawfully”, “Buildings destroyed by accident”, etc. Fire would be subsumed in the various categories I’ve already suggested, depending on whether wildfire, arson, war, or accident. Or if there is some reason to give fires a separate category, regardless of how they originated, that could be done instead. I would suggest assessing the need for all these categories, though. Let’s be sure to imagine a use someone would find for each, before multiplying categories beyond necessity. Hamblin (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Correction: In order to accommodate accidents correctly, instead of "Buildings destroyed purposely", it would have to be "Buildings destroyed by people". Hamblin (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Another thought: Instead of "Buildings destroyed lawfully," we could use the already existing Category:Demolitions (which I noted in a Comment below as not being a subject of this discussion), unless that would cause a problem elsewhere. Hamblin (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's wrong with Category:Building destructions by type? Ideally, we should try to avoid a category name that includes two variations on the word "destroyed". Having said that, the more I look at Category:Destroyed buildings by means of destruction the more I think it isn't bad.
- Category:Buildings destroyed by type is a grammatical mess. I'd say Category:Destroyed buildings by means of destruction but someone else may be able to come up with something tighter. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Enough of the blame, Bidgee, and please just assume others are as interested as you in coming up with a solution. It's impossible to have a discussion with you when you only want to start with the premise that others are at fault. Having said that, my last comment was uncalled for, as I should never be encouraging people to ignore someone. That wasn't fair, and I apologize for that, and I ought to have worked harder at trying to discern your concern. Onto the substantive issue, then, Category:Buildings destroyed by type is what I also envisioned, and I don't think "type" is the wrong word. I wonder if that category name might, however, suggest that that it is types of buildings, rather than types of destructions, which are at issue? Would Category:Building destructions by type be better? Category:Fire-damaged buildings by country wouldn't necessarily be the same as Category:Buildings destroyed by fire, as the former could involve buildings that survived. However, you are correct that they are linked, and perhaps the latter is a subcategory of the former? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- My good faith with you is now non-existent if you think that keeping the bigger mess you've created is ok, rather then fixing it. I've have said, "Demolished buildings" could've remained as a subcat, the main problem was with the "Former". Unlike someone here whom is doing nothing but throwing insults at me, I've taken a stab on a system to use the less then ideal solution Category:Buildings destroyed by type (type is not the ideal word but can you think of one that doesn't make it long and complex?) which would contain buildings that were destroyed by fire, tornadoes, floods, cyclones ect. Though I've come across another category (Category:Damaged buildings and Category:Fire-damaged buildings by country) that clearly should fit in this one, according to Skeezix1000. Bidgee (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hamblin, I'm not sure it's worth engaging Bidgee. He is only interested in telling people how wrong they are. Until he calms down and tries to show that he understands that the others here are just as interested in the best solution possible as he is, I've just stopped reading his stuff. When he is interested in finding a solution rather than laying blame, I'm happy to discuss with him. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion is not hidden. What would constitute "community notice"? Hamblin (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Which of your files do you feel are inaccurately categorized? Are they by any chance media of demolitions in progress? Hamblin (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- You told me "And I ask that you try to contribute without insulting people's work and making silly accusations" and then you said "Seriously, it is possible to communicate your concerns without shitting on others", do you see the irony? If you bothered to look at my concerns, you'll note that I was raising the fact that all you did was move the issue, rather then fixing it. Having a partly demolished house in a destroyed category is completely wrong, it wasn't destroyed by fire, earthquake, tornado or a bomb. Hang on, can you make up your mind? "Second, no one said demolished=destroyed" but above you then change your mind "While we would normally use the word demolition rather than destroyed in some contexts, the word "destroyed" is also correct and the baseline situation has been explained below". I'm not going to have files I've uploaded in an inaccurate category and the fact that you've pushed your proposal without any community notice, other then this hidden discussion. Bidgee (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- First, I don't know what "resorting in insults" means. Not sure why you feel insulted, since you are the one going around saying "I'm not going to fix this mess, I'm leaving it up to the people whom created it", because you seem to feel some need to put down people when you are concerned about what they've done. Asking you to knock it off was not an insult. Second, no one asked you to fix anything, so unclear why you keep repeating that. Third, I never made any proposal. I simply summarized what people had agreed to after two months of discussion - I think the only part that I came up with myself was the use of a DAB page. Finally, yes, a building that is half demolished is half destroyed. Demolition is simply the type of destruction. While we would normally use the word demolition rather than destroyed in some contexts, the word "destroyed" is also correct and the baseline situation has been explained below. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- WOW, so now you're resorting in insults. I've read the discussion, and again, you've applied your own proposal without getting more support from the community.Again you don't get it, you don't call a partly demolished building (for construction purposes) a partly destroyed building. Though if it was caused by fire, earthquake or a tornado, you would. I'm not fixing something that you've caused yourself. Bidgee (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unbelievable. I really do urge you to read the discussion above, because you clearly have not. And I ask that you try to contribute without insulting people's work and making silly accusations. Seriously, it is possible to communicate your concerns without shitting on others. And, demolished buildings are destroyed buildings. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have started the implementation. We should keep the discussion open for a short time, in case there are any issues arising from the implementation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition and move all the media there from Category:Demolished buildings. It would lessen the ambiguity.
Oppose Merging them comlpletely into a single category. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that the content of Category:Demolished buildings includes more than just buildings destroyed by demolition. So moving it all to a precise category like Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition doesn't make a lot of sense, although such a category could (like most of our subcategories) be developed over time as people finesse the categorization of media and place it in more precise subcats. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe the actual move was a little hasty, but how many months we have to wait ? Anyway, I think that the move was needed as the current categories where a mix-up, so it is probably better to start with a neat baseline that can be expanded upon. Anyway, as often with such discussions, people tend to notice it only when the categories start moving. Maybe we should investigate to execute such mass moves in stages with some intervals: top level country level, Sublevels deeper cats. ... But that is not necessarily easy to manage. --Foroa (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Baseline? Both categories can co-exist, common sense is all that needed to apply to them. Category:Demolished buildings could've been a sub cat of Category:Destroyed buildings or we may as well rename all the images of "buildings being demolished" to buildings being destroyed. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, and nobody ever said Category:Demolished buildings couldn't be a subcategory. The problem was that the existing category structure was a mess, with three category trees (former buildings, demolished buildings, destroyed buildings) all covering the same subject area and simultaneously attempting to address distinct concepts. The point was to establish a clear category framework (I like Foroa's use of the term baseline), get everything in a correct category (even if it might be broad in terms of type of destruction), and in the normal Commons course nothing would stop the implementation of more precise categories for types of destruction. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Quite true. But, as I mentioned above, "Demolished buildings" is not more precise, because “demolish” is too close in meaning to “destroy” for the distinction to be clear to everyone, even with common sense. For example:
- Most of the town was demolished by a tornado.
- The truck hit a wall at high speed, virtually demolishing it.
- The fire demolished the area.
- The car was demolished in the accident.
And categories must be useful, not only precise. Otherwise we could have "Yellow buildings," "Pointy buildings,” “Buildings near telephone poles,” “Buildings between 50 and 75 years old,” “Buildings commissioned by clients whose last names begin with the letter ‘M’,” etc. Categories exist to quickly narrow the field of a search. What search would -- in real life -- benefit from the category, “Buildings destroyed by demolition”? It’s like having a subcategory of “People” called “People who lived less than 85 years.” By contrast, an actually useful category might be "Controversial demolitions," like New York City's Pennsylvania Station. Hamblin (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's a good point. I do think demolition has a different and more precise meaning, but I get your point that the distinction if often lost in common usage. I also suspect that on a multilingual/global project like this, any distinction between the two words may be completely lost (even among anglophones from different parts of the world). But I do think that there must be a way on a go-forward basis to come up with wording that would allow for more precise subcategories for planned demolitions (although I can't think of that wording at this very moment -- deliberate demolition?). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Deliberately and lawfully [to exclude war and crime] destroyed buildings". But most buildings are deliberately and lawfully destroyed; that was the point of my analogy to "People who lived less than 85 years". What purpose is served by a subcategory that narrows the parent category only slightly? Hamblin (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Re-reading Bidgee's comments, he or she seems to be interested more in the present tense (or present progressive); i.e., buildings being demolished, which is a much smaller, and, in my opinion, more sensible category. Hamblin (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good first point. As for your second point, I honestly can't tell what Bidgee is trying to say. But I see what you are saying about the act of demolition. I would have thought that would fall under the related category tree of Category:Demolitions. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I only became aware of this discussion when Category:Cine City, Withington was abruptly moved from Category:Demolished buildings in the United Kingdom to Category:Destroyed buildings in the United Kingdom. In this case, the building was clearly deliberately demolished, so the categorisation was correct in the first place. 'Destroyed' is a very general term, and if this move does take place then great care should be taken to ensure that categories are appropriately recategorised rather than just blanked recategorised. If there is going to be a bot move here, then perhaps a heads-up notice could be given on the talk pages of the affected categories, along with some way of opting a category out of the move if 'demolished' is already the correct category? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read the whole discussion on this page? I realize it's gotten kind of long by now, but I do think it's worth taking the time. Thank you in advance. Hamblin (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd also like to ask you (and everyone else) a good-natured question. Can you think of a hypothetical reason a user might have to search for buildings that don't exist any longer, but not owing to nature, accident, collapse, neglect, crime, or war; rather, owing to the ordinary and routine activity of replacing smaller/older buildings with larger/newer ones? I can't, so I don't understand the need for this category. Maybe you see something here that I'm missing? Thanks. Hamblin (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Demolition in the United Kingdom. The "s" seems to be missing by typo; should be Category:Demolitions in the United Kingdom. Hamblin (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Your files are images of a demolition in progress. Nothing in this discussion was intended to apply to those. They belong in the "Demolitions" categories -- in your case, "Demolition in the United Kingdom". We are discussing media of intact buildings which were later demolished. Hamblin (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Mike, the problem was that the categories were a mess, with the categories pertaining to demolished and former buildings applying to all sorts of different types of situations. So while categories for demolished buildings contained buildings that were demolished as part of redevelopment activities, but they were also full of images of buildings destroyed in other manners. And as seen above, there is a lot of debate as to what "demolition" even means, which likely contributed to the mess. While I agree with your statement "great care should be taken to ensure that categories are appropriately recategorised", it is already a massive task just clarifying and cleaning up the categories, let alone analyzing all of the content to try and discern the manner of destruction. In most cases, there is no explanation as to how a building ceased to be. Of course, in the normal course all of this content can be placed in more precise categories (as part of a clearer category structure). Now, as for images pertaining to the act of demolition in the construction sense, Hamblin helpfully points out that there is a separate category tree for that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Hablin and Skeezix1000 for your replies. Cleaning up the category structure makes a lot of sense, but I do worry that they shouldn't be bluntly moved without explanation. I know it's a big job, and understand bots doing the work, but perhaps talk page warnings can be left by the bot so that people watching the affected categories can help out? I'm not sure that the distinction of "intact buildings later demolished" makes sense, as I'd expect images of both the whole and demolished building to potentially be in the same category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- By "intact buildings later demolished" I meant buildings whose demolitions are not uploaded. For buildings whose demolitions are uploaded (i.e., whose demolitions are of interest, as opposed to the mere fact that they were demolished), I agree the intact building should be in the same category as the pictures of the demolition. Hamblin (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Hablin and Skeezix1000 for your replies. Cleaning up the category structure makes a lot of sense, but I do worry that they shouldn't be bluntly moved without explanation. I know it's a big job, and understand bots doing the work, but perhaps talk page warnings can be left by the bot so that people watching the affected categories can help out? I'm not sure that the distinction of "intact buildings later demolished" makes sense, as I'd expect images of both the whole and demolished building to potentially be in the same category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Mike, the problem was that the categories were a mess, with the categories pertaining to demolished and former buildings applying to all sorts of different types of situations. So while categories for demolished buildings contained buildings that were demolished as part of redevelopment activities, but they were also full of images of buildings destroyed in other manners. And as seen above, there is a lot of debate as to what "demolition" even means, which likely contributed to the mess. While I agree with your statement "great care should be taken to ensure that categories are appropriately recategorised", it is already a massive task just clarifying and cleaning up the categories, let alone analyzing all of the content to try and discern the manner of destruction. In most cases, there is no explanation as to how a building ceased to be. Of course, in the normal course all of this content can be placed in more precise categories (as part of a clearer category structure). Now, as for images pertaining to the act of demolition in the construction sense, Hamblin helpfully points out that there is a separate category tree for that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment In case anyone doesn't know, there is a separate Category:Demolitions that is not a subject of this discussion. Hamblin (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I notice that en has many "Defunct" categories such as en:Category:Defunct organizations and, closer to home, we have Category:No longer existent subjects with similar "Defunct" subcats. I like "Defunct" better than "Demolished" or any of the others, for its shortness and for its precise degree of vagueness, but my desultory participation in this discussion leaves me unqualified to do more than suggest. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Defunct" with reference to buildings is exactly as unclear as "former": a "defunct gas station" normally refers to a still-standing building. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. I don't use it that way, but perhaps I'm the odd one. I'll go back to my usual activities and hope you folks can work out a clear, unambiguous nomenclature, and perhaps not too verbose. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Lawfully destroyed buildings" is better than "Buildings destroyed by demolition". Don't you agree? Hamblin (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes buildings are demolished unlawfully, or the legal status of the demolition is disputed or unclear. Peter James (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give some examples of what you have in mind? Hamblin (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can think of a few times I've heard of the owner of a building in the U.S. deliberately demolishing it without appropriate permits to create a "fact on the ground" in terms of wanting to build a new building on the site. I gather that there are a number of other countries where this is more common, including cases where the party responsible for the demolition may not even have had entirely clear ownership. I don't have a citation offhand, though. - Jmabel ! talk 04:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- So you'd prefer "Buildings destroyed by demolition", then? Hamblin (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- If we need such a category, then I'd expect something like "Buildings destroyed by demolition". But since that's the normal case when a building is gone, I doubt we need such a category. It would be the residue in a category for buildings that no longer exist, whatever the latter is called. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- My sentiments, exactly! Hamblin (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- If we need such a category, then I'd expect something like "Buildings destroyed by demolition". But since that's the normal case when a building is gone, I doubt we need such a category. It would be the residue in a category for buildings that no longer exist, whatever the latter is called. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- So you'd prefer "Buildings destroyed by demolition", then? Hamblin (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can think of a few times I've heard of the owner of a building in the U.S. deliberately demolishing it without appropriate permits to create a "fact on the ground" in terms of wanting to build a new building on the site. I gather that there are a number of other countries where this is more common, including cases where the party responsible for the demolition may not even have had entirely clear ownership. I don't have a citation offhand, though. - Jmabel ! talk 04:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give some examples of what you have in mind? Hamblin (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes buildings are demolished unlawfully, or the legal status of the demolition is disputed or unclear. Peter James (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Lawfully destroyed buildings" is better than "Buildings destroyed by demolition". Don't you agree? Hamblin (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. I don't use it that way, but perhaps I'm the odd one. I'll go back to my usual activities and hope you folks can work out a clear, unambiguous nomenclature, and perhaps not too verbose. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jim.henderson, Mike Peel, Skeezix1000, Bidgee, Nyttend, Lionel Allorge, EurekaLott, Moogsi: A lot of discussion on this one, but I'm not sure consensus was ever reached. I confess, I didn't read everything above. In the meantime, Category:Demolished buildings was redirected to a new category, Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition, about a year ago. Is everyone okay with that? I see that Jmabel and Hamblin don't think this new category is really necessary, but are you specifically against it existing? Or can we close? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I just assumed that this got closed years ago. I'm fine with the "Buildings destroyed by demolition" action and see no reason to suggest further changes. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really care. - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care as well, I've lost interest in this category issue. I have bigger things to worry about. Bidgee (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. It is fine for me. Best regards. Lionel Allorge (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. It makes sense to close it. Hamblin (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus through boredom is as good as we shall get. Too late, but I agree. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. It is fine for me. Best regards. Lionel Allorge (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care as well, I've lost interest in this category issue. I have bigger things to worry about. Bidgee (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept as Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition per consensus through boredom. =) Thanks everyone for your input over nearly 3 years. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The title and the concept for this category is mind-bendingly racist and pejorative. This category should be deleted, and the images in question could be categorized in the appropriate Category:Military history by country. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- Sorry Uyvsdi : there was absolutely no "racist" or "pejorative" intentions : the idea was to study the "art of war" among prehistoric peoples ( primitive ) and ancient natives nations - the military art of those nations being very close the prehistoric one refering to prehistoric paintings of gaming and combat - for an entry on FR-WIKIPEDI. And refering also to studies about that topic published eg by Emile Wanty, an historian and professor at the Belgian Ecole Royale Militaire which may certainly not be suspected of any form of racism! Cheers Thib Phil (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- delete per nom, and reclassify in Military history by country. The term 'native' in this context can be seen as pejorative; Is a Frenchman on French soil a 'native'? If not, why is an Indian on Indian soil a 'native'? see [3] for further discussion. Finally, linking prehistoric/primitive groups with so-called 'native' groups is also a POV linkage - what do cave drawings in France have to do with Ghanaian soldiers in the 1860s? We could create a new cat called "Prehistoric art of war" that would collect ancient art such as cave art on this topic which would be interesting and not pejorative since it refers to a time period (instead of calling some group of people 'primitive'). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Must be some misunderstanding indeed : native is translated "indigène" in french and the term is not racist ! So my apologies to whom feel schoked and do as you consider the best - I will just keep some webads of documents for my entry in french - just wait I created my "personal gallery". Thib Phil (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Indigenous is sometimes used in these cases and is probably a better translation of indigene.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Cleaned ! Thib Phil (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Must be some misunderstanding indeed : native is translated "indigène" in french and the term is not racist ! So my apologies to whom feel schoked and do as you consider the best - I will just keep some webads of documents for my entry in french - just wait I created my "personal gallery". Thib Phil (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- delete per nom, and reclassify in Military history by country. The term 'native' in this context can be seen as pejorative; Is a Frenchman on French soil a 'native'? If not, why is an Indian on Indian soil a 'native'? see [3] for further discussion. Finally, linking prehistoric/primitive groups with so-called 'native' groups is also a POV linkage - what do cave drawings in France have to do with Ghanaian soldiers in the 1860s? We could create a new cat called "Prehistoric art of war" that would collect ancient art such as cave art on this topic which would be interesting and not pejorative since it refers to a time period (instead of calling some group of people 'primitive'). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion
editCategory:Ethnographic military art would be a useful category, using the apporopriate term in English. Note that should not contain weapons, but an "art of War" parent could. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- THX : usefull suggestion ! But one can hardly speak about indigenous art of war without speaking about indigenous weapons as both are obviously related - what do you thing ? Thib Phil (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Close and delete category immediately: The category is now empty and it was removed from the category tree by Thib Phil in 2013. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Closing as per above. Added {{Bad name}}. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
"Native American" on Wikipedia is defined as being an Indigenous person from the United States, so this category should be deleted. Uyvsdi (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- comment American can be seen as a broader term and can refer to indigenous peoples from elsewhere in the Americas (eg Canada, Mexico, etc) - the question is do those groups accept that this term might apply to them. In any case, the category is empty - did you empty it before nominating? if so, please re-populate it, so we can see what was in there before - otherwise it is hard to judge this category. Was it supposed to refer to art from France that depicted Native Americans? Or something else? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- This has been discussed in incredible length on Wikipedia, but probably the best round up of the discussion can be found in Native American name controversy and the introduction to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Especially in Canada, "Native American" is not the preferred term for Aboriginal peoples of Canada. The primary category here in Wikimedia Commons is Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas. I can repopulate (although going through history seems easier). -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- It looks like this category was created along with many others to depopulate the over-crowded Category:Native Americans in art. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- This has been discussed in incredible length on Wikipedia, but probably the best round up of the discussion can be found in Native American name controversy and the introduction to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Especially in Canada, "Native American" is not the preferred term for Aboriginal peoples of Canada. The primary category here in Wikimedia Commons is Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas. I can repopulate (although going through history seems easier). -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- Rename In that case, I vote to rename to Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art by country, and then move it up one level so it sits under Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art, and then add Category:Native Americans in art underneath that category, with a descriptor at the top explaining that it refers to depictions of native americans from what is now the United States; then do the work of creating new sub-categories as necessary to depopulate Category:Native Americans in art. A suggestion for the future - don't depopulate a category before nominating it for deletion, as it makes it hard to understand what was the editor's intent in creating that cat in the first place.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete "By country" is ridiculous. For one thing, you also have tribal nations like the Blackfeet who live in both the US and Canada (similarly, certain groups live in both the US and Mexico). "Indigenous people of the Americas" also encompasses South America, by the way. May want to consider "North America", though I have no strong position. Category:Native Americans in art seems fine, though Indigenous peoples of ... " can also work. Or maybe add a category for First Nations people (i.e. Canadians) and if too crowded, then needs to be broken down by tribal affiliation, i.e. "Blackfeet artists" "Sioux artists" etc., leaving people with multiple tribal ancestry in the generic main category. But "by country" is redundant and unnecessary, needs to go. Montanabw (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- comment - note this category is not about artists who are indigenous - this is about depictions in art of various groups. It was suggested that Category:Native Americans in art (a) is too big and (b) contains groups which are not in the United States - apparently "Native Americans" only works for those in the US. We already have Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art, which as you note includes *all* of the Americas (North, south, central, even Caribbean), but the question still remains - if we move the non-US from Category:Native Americans in art to Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art, that category will remain too large and could use breaking down. I don't think there is any issue with linking it to a particular country - we run into this discussion all the time - for example in Wikipedia we have en:Category:Archaeological_sites_in_County_Sligo, even though these sites were built 5000 years before County Sligo was even imagined - it is impossible to completely avoid anarchronisms! If you really have an issue with anachronism, take a look at Category:People_in_art_by_country, which is chock full of this sort of stuff.
- IMHO, the best solution is to find something that is practical, and division by current country boundary is widely used across categories in all of wikipedia and commons. If you look at the current depictions, many of them already say "brazilian indians" or "indians in peru" or other such notions, so it won't be hard to break these down (and we already have Category:Indigenous_peoples_of_Brazil_in_art and Category:Indigenous peoples of Canada in art - others could be added. Yes you're right, some tribes cross current borders - of course they do, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise... but you can either divide by the current nation-state boundaries, or the much larger geographical ones (e.g. North America, Central America, South America), or come up with other subdivisions and then try to figure it out - I think in the end, for the average user, it will be easier to understand "here is an image of a person who (probably) lived in what is now called Canada".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, but the point still holds; if the "Native Americans" category is too big, then breaking down by indigenous ethnicity (Blackfeet, Crow, Sioux, Ojibwa or whatever) is the most appropriate method and should not be particularly difficult, whether you are talking art or artist. For example, "Blackfeet people in art" would be fine. Where it is a generic "Indian" then even breaking down into cultural groups is usually possible, i.e. "Northeast Woodlands", "Plains Indians" etc...at least for historic images. Montanabw (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- The majority of these images would be impossible to break down by ethnic group or even country, since a lot of them are generic or stereotypical; however, several other categories were creates to depopulate the Category:Native Americans in art, such as Category:Native Americans in art by artist, Category:Native Americans in art by medium, and Category:Native Americans in art by subject. "Media" would probably be the best place to start. Possibly, Category:Native Americans on stamps or Category:Native Americans in book illustrations could be created. I did create Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in advertisement, since it would be a stretch to define the subcats (logos, mascots, cigar store Indians, etc.) as "art." -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- So if there is no need to break down by geography, then the category needs to be deleted. There seeems no other plausible option?Montanabw (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here, here! -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- So if there is no need to break down by geography, then the category needs to be deleted. There seeems no other plausible option?Montanabw (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
comment At the very least, we should try some sort of geographical breakdown nonetheless. If there is strong disagreement with country categories, how about at least continental ones (e.g. Indigenous peoples of North America in art, Indigenous peoples of the Caribbean in art, then South America, Central America, etc - and have all of this under Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art by location? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Reply: I guess I don't see the need for a geographical breakdown at all. And do we count Mexico as North America or Central America? Technically, Central America IS part of North America! And, for example, some people in the border regions could fall into more than one category (say, for example, people living in parts of both Panama and Venezuela; or Mexico and Guatemala, etc...) I guess I don't see why a geographical breakdown (as opposed to an ethnicity breakdown if/when obvious, which might be helpful) is needed for its own sake. I guess I'm open to hearing if there's a policy on Commons that says we must do this, but absent a mandate, I hesitate to break it down more than the landmass. Montanabw (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Mexico is North America, as is Panama and everything north, including the Caribbean. What gets confusing is when things get broken into "Latin America," so I try to avoid that. Yeah, the Circum-Caribbean peoples span both North and South, so that's why I personally shy away from those divisions. There's only 17 files in Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art. It's Category:Native Americans in art that is grossly overpopulated. It seems we three agree to delete this category (Category:Native Americans in art by country). Why not just try to move the files in Category:Native Americans in art, which are mostly US (those that aren't should be moved out), into the subcategories (medium, artist, museum collections)? A lot of these actually already are in subcats, and it's just a matter deleting the superfluous supercat. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- Ok, lets do this - move everything out of Category:Native Americans in art which is clearly not US to Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art, and move down anything left into some of the subcats you've defined, and then we'll see what is left and revisit this - can we put it on hold until that cat work is done? As to the geographies, Central America and Caribbean are both part of NA, so they would be subcats - see en:Category:Health by continent / en:Category:Health in North America for how this works in other cats in wikipedia (Mexico is NA, not Central America). I will move Category:Native Americans in art by country up to Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art as that's the right level for it, and once we've cleaned the cats we will revisit whether a geographic breakdown is needed. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Mexico is North America, as is Panama and everything north, including the Caribbean. What gets confusing is when things get broken into "Latin America," so I try to avoid that. Yeah, the Circum-Caribbean peoples span both North and South, so that's why I personally shy away from those divisions. There's only 17 files in Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art. It's Category:Native Americans in art that is grossly overpopulated. It seems we three agree to delete this category (Category:Native Americans in art by country). Why not just try to move the files in Category:Native Americans in art, which are mostly US (those that aren't should be moved out), into the subcategories (medium, artist, museum collections)? A lot of these actually already are in subcats, and it's just a matter deleting the superfluous supercat. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Let's simply delete this category. The terminology is absurd since elsewhere throughout Wikimedia categories, "Native Americans" refers to Indigenous peoples in the United States, so the premise of this category is absurd. Any other decisions can happen on the talk pages of the categories. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- I can see your point; but again, we have Category:Native Americans in art, which is, by your own words, a country-specific category - something you guys are arguing shouldn't exist! We also have Brazilian and Canadian categories already, and we could easily create one for Peru. So why not rename for now? If you're eager to delete, fine we can delete, but then I or someone else would probably recreate Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art by country and it would have the same contents... You can't have it both ways - if you have country-specific cats, it makes sense to have a country container - so let's just rename it to Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art by country and leave it at that?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. All I would like to achieve here is deleting this category. Conversation about the Category:Native Americans in art can take place on its talk page, which would be the appropriate place. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- I'm certainly not trying to put words in your mouth. As you said, ""Native Americans" refers to Indigenous peoples in the United States" - therefore I take that to mean Category:Native Americans in art is for depictions of indigenous peoples who lived in what is now the United States - thus it is already a country-specific category. I think your original point in nominating this is right - if NA means US only (more or less), then NA by country doesn't make sense - but that doesn't mean "Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art by country" doesn't make sense. If deleting/re-adding a different cat is easier/faster, I'm fine with that, but since we already have 3 country-specific cats, unless we decide to get rid of those, I don't see that having a container is a bad thing. The question is, what do we name the container?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. All I would like to achieve here is deleting this category. Conversation about the Category:Native Americans in art can take place on its talk page, which would be the appropriate place. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
It's been four months. Can this category be deleted? -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Closed discussion.--Allforrous (talk)03:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, as empty. The move been been long done. --rimshottalk 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to duplicate the purpose of the category "Former buildings in New York City". Hamblin (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I propose adding a redirect to "Category:Demolished buildings in New York City" pointing to "Category:Former buildings in New York City".
- As I have mentioned in one of the talk pages, the global Category:Demolished buildings is a daughter cat of Category:Former buildings, hence the proposal would better address the global categories and their entire respective trees. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree it would make more sense to address this at the global level (of this tree). Hamblin (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I have opened a discussion on "Category:Demolished buildings". Hamblin (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Vote yes for your proposal. Former has a better ring to it. A bot can clean up the cats on pages. — Dogears (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps might be confused with a former function, as in Category:Buildings in the United States by former function and in particular cases like Church of the Holy Communion and Buildings, a Category:Secularized churches and former nightclub, now a small retail venue. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings. Thank you. Hamblin (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, because it would confuse the category tree. If we get rid of the entire Demolished buildings category in the other discussion (an idea that I've supported), its subcategories will get merged into the former buildings subcategories, thus accomplishing what Hamblin hoped to have done with this category. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Right. Hamblin (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
@Hamblin: Given that Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings closed last January, are we okay to close this discussion as well? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine. Hamblin (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Closing as resolved, as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Compared with en:Category:House of Hashim, en:Hashemites, this category and its sub categories are exaggerated and swollen per Ashrf1979's POV. Takabeg (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
house of Hashim modern term used in Jordan and Iraq , Hashemites is Old term for all the people and families that descended from Hashim grandfather of the Prophet MuhammadAshrf1979 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Takabeg and Ashrf1979: I don't understand the problem raised here. Perhaps it has been resolved since March 2013? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Every tram in Prague has it's own category based on its fleet number, this means that the category for the Category:Škoda 15T in Prague just has a list of trams with the photos in there, many only have one picture. The same is true for almost all Category:Trams in Prague subcategories, it actually makes it really hard to find pictures, as you have to look through dozens if not hundreds of different categories. All of these individual fleet categories are then together in one mega category Category:Trams in Prague by registration number - which has 1,048 categories listed (one for each Prague tram), most with only one or two files or no files and just more categories. Is this really necessary? Can we move all photos of trams into the category of model, and not have them all sorted by fleet number? Liamdavies (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is something that should be done by intersecting categories. But I think that Commons has no such extension. Sinnamon (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon? Liamdavies (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I will try to explain. There is an "intersection" extension out there for MW software, it allows a person to say something like "find all images in category 'Trams in Prague' and 'Skoda 15T trams'" and to display such as a category. This would make categorisation (you only categorise once per a specific thing, and would allow people to find files that are as specific or as general as they wish. I hope it's a little clearer now. Sinnamon (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CategoryIntersection Sinnamon (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, but with the lack of that extension what do we do? Is it acceptable that we have 1,048 categories - one for each tram vehicle in Prague? I would think it much better and easier to have all tram vehicles of the same type to be in one category, the current situation is hugely unwieldy and makes it really really hard to look for photos for articles. Is there a policy or convention on this? Liamdavies (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am not as knowledgeable as to know if there's a policy about that. But it does seem that, although with good intentions, somebody has gone overboard with categorisation. If there's only a single photo of each tram type, then it'd be much easier to simply put the type in the description of the image, and let the person to find that tram using Special:Search. But that is just my opinion. Sinnamon (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is exactly what I want to do, I want to put all pictures of one type/model/class into just one category (ie all pictures of 15Ts in Prague in Category:Škoda 15T in Prague), but I would like consensus or a policy to back me up. The user who categorised them all seems to be quite quick to move and I'd rather not do a lot of work and then have it all reverted. Also, it's not type, it just the actual vehicle number, there is no difference between any of the trams in Category:Škoda 15T in Prague except the number (maybe a few differences with the first couple, but the rest should be the same). It would be like categorising all cars in Category:Police automobiles in Australia by registration plate, it just makes it difficult to find pictures for articles. Liamdavies (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am not as knowledgeable as to know if there's a policy about that. But it does seem that, although with good intentions, somebody has gone overboard with categorisation. If there's only a single photo of each tram type, then it'd be much easier to simply put the type in the description of the image, and let the person to find that tram using Special:Search. But that is just my opinion. Sinnamon (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, but with the lack of that extension what do we do? Is it acceptable that we have 1,048 categories - one for each tram vehicle in Prague? I would think it much better and easier to have all tram vehicles of the same type to be in one category, the current situation is hugely unwieldy and makes it really really hard to look for photos for articles. Is there a policy or convention on this? Liamdavies (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon? Liamdavies (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I understand your reasons against this detailed categorization. However, you maybe undervalue the advantages and benefits.
- When you argue that "many only have one picture", you should not neglect the "many have several or tens of pictures" and "just every vehicle have its own photo". That time that most of individual vehicles have their own photo on Commons, there is the right time to create corresponding subcategories.
- The old Ringhoffer trams have no official type names, the fleet numbers are an useful instrument to systematize the photos.
- Some types of trams were manufactured through tens of years - although it is identic type, many details were successively changed (T3 from 1960s is a bitt different than T3 from late 1970s) and the fleet number sequence is a good way how to reflect it.
- Many photographs (even from transport fans) are not familiar with knowledge of tram types and subtypes. However, everybody of them should be able to categorize a tram by its sheet number, thereby indirectly assigns the tram to its type.
- Individual tram vehicles are not so anonymous and identical as you believe. Above all, advertisement coats and plasters make the vehicles very distinctive. Some vehicles are specific as prototypes, modified pieces, many pieces have almost 50 years of their unique history, endured reconstructions and modifications, accidents, transfers from one depot to another etc. etc. Detailed categorization enables to group or list individual vehicles by their subseries, common attributes, identic history etc. and allows to connect the pre-reconstruction identity with the post-reconstruction identity of individual trams.
I would be not in a hurry to apply this system on buses (which have substantially shorter lifetime period) but I think, this categorization of trams is very usefull and adequate to the current (and future) quantity of uploaded photos. The modular system of categorization is optimalized for detailed systematic classification. You can compenzate its disadvantages by gallery pages, paralel categorization by view (see Views of vehicles) or wait for new functionalities for more comfortable browsing of subcategories. --ŠJů (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I understand why it's been done, but I don't think commons is suited for that level of categorisation. What you're talking about is far more suited to a database (all Melbourne trams are in a database called vicsig it's very good, but it's also much easier to use, and easily searchable). I am very versed in the differences and anomalies in different vehicles, please do not be mistaken on that. But... aside from the first 2 prototype 15Ts, they are the essentially the same tram with different numbers. The other differences you speak of could be dealt with through a simpler category system, all T3s should still remain in subclass categories, and AOA trams could be placed into a separate category too.
- There are many useless categories, for example, why does this exist; Category:Tram_6138_(Prague)? Why can these two pictures; File:Pivni tramway.jpg & File:Nádraží Hostivař, 6815 6909.jpg not just be in the same category, ie Category:Tatra T3 in Prague - the second picture is the only picture in two categories; Category:Tram 6815 (Prague) & Category:Tram 6909 (Prague).
- A much better way of sorting them would be to include the numbers into the description and/or file name so that they can be located through a search, or in the case of the file name, show up in order. I have never seen such a fragmented and convoluted system, categories are to sort and make files easy to find, not to hide and obscure the contents of commons. For example, on the first page of Category:Tatra T3 in Prague only 19 out of 200 categories actually contain a photo, the rest just contain more categories, it's a maze. Can someone more versed on category policy please weight in on this? Liamdavies (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've run Category:Trams in Prague through CatScan V2.0β and it found 3184 objects (pages, categories and files) and searched 1133 categories, this means that there are 1133 categories within Category:Trams in Prague to sort only 2051 pages and files, surely this can be consolidated down to about many fewer categories. Liamdavies (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've thought of a solution. We can convert all of the "Tram xxxx (Prague)" categories to hiddencats, so that one can still click a link and show all photos of an individual tram, and then ad the broader category ie Category:Tatra T3 in Prague, so images will also populate that category, and lower dramatically the amount of categories visibly nested in Category:Trams in Prague. Ideas? Liamdavies (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've run Category:Trams in Prague through CatScan V2.0β and it found 3184 objects (pages, categories and files) and searched 1133 categories, this means that there are 1133 categories within Category:Trams in Prague to sort only 2051 pages and files, surely this can be consolidated down to about many fewer categories. Liamdavies (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think, Commons should categorize on all relevant levels, not only on the higher ones. The adequate level depends (besides other) on amount of the uploaded photos (files) and subcategories. I think, more than 2000 photos are enough to be categorized thoroughly. Categories should sort the content systematically, not group hundreds of photos to one big dump. Categorization system of wiki projects is primarily modular, not by tags or keywords. Even if some pieces have only one or two photos still, there is useful to enable to find them (and to group the two photos together) - and moreover, many pieces have more photos.
- I see no reason in converting these categories to hiddencats. They are standard item categories - just as categories of individual buildings, villages, people etc. They should be visible, properly categorized and not separated. "Hidden" mark would solve absolutely nothing. Category of an individual vehicle must be certainly visible and foundable in the category of the corresponding type, so the amout of subcategories would not drop by such action. If we want some "summary" view, we can wait for some tool to effective browsing of subcategories or create some paralel category branch (trams by view etc.) or overview galleries but we should not destroy or paralyse the current detailed categorization by number.
- You are right that pieces of the newest types (Škoda 14T, Škoda 15T) have very short specific history (and only several of them have or had a specific advertisement coat or some specific equipment like WiFi), but it would be not desirable to differ categorizing standards for every type of tram. Btw, the type name is not so good visible on the vehicles as the fleet number, thus the number is more practical for the basic level of categorization. The simple unified system is very friendly for who is searching or uploading a photo of a real vehicle.
- Category:Tram_6138_(Prague) is obviously not an useless category. It is not empty but it contain one subcategory, which means that we have no photo of this tram before the reconstruction and renumbering yet, but we have some its photos past the reconstruction. Do you cannot see the subcategory, or don't understand the effort to associate the older and the newer photos of identic piece? We would make great thanks to the creators of that precise categorization.
- The files File:Pivni tramway.jpg & File:Nádraží Hostivař, 6815 6909.jpg are categorized by the visible trams and the trams are categorized by type. It implies from the basic principle of categorization: „Generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic.“ Similarly, if we have a specific category for some king or president, the photos from such category are not categorized directly into the parent categories like "Kings of..." or "Presidents of..." I agree that modular categorization can be uncomfortable for some kinds of usage but it was chosen as the basic principle and have also many big advantages. --ŠJů (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I get the idea that we are going to go round in circles, and that you very much like the current category scheme, and will oppose any changes at all. Is this a correct assumption? Liamdavies (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I mean this is wrong way. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia, not the list of vehicles. Individual vehicles should man find on special pages. Wikipedia should bring encyclopedial information and it is surely not the picture of each vehicle of some type from the same angle. Try to find view on the roof of 14T! Next reason is that rules should be commonly applicable. One user has a collection of photos of about 1.000 different wagons ČSD Class Uacs. Should he place them here?--PetrS. (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is Commons not Wikipedia. Over here we accumulate media suitable for use on Wikipedia and its sister sites. It's not unusual to have more pictures to illustrate a topic than are actually needed. As such, I'm OK with the lowest level vehicle categories. What's really needed are some nice galleries showing off the pictures we have. Is there a script which will seed these galleries with the media we have? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Liamdavies. You force me to go round in circles again.
- I didn't enforce nor create this system (except for some historic pieces) but I understand and respect it (its benefits were explained above). I consider as unacceptable to destroy this big work and to pour hundreds of images back together into big mixed dumps. However, I would be not in a hurry for mass application of this system on buses, metro and railway rolling stock etc. (except for important or specific pieces).
- I understand and share our troubles with modular categorization but the solution is to create some tool for effective browsing of subcategories or create some paralel category branch (trams by view, details of trams by type - e. g. "Roofs of Tatra T14" - etc.) or overview galleries. I'm ready to support such constructive changes, but not any destructive changes. --ŠJů (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Liamdavies. You force me to go round in circles again.
- Support upmerge per nom. commons should not be used as a database system for image classification at this level of detail. 1000 categories to sort 2000 images is excessive. Use of better naming schemes would be preferred - I support simplifying the category split.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose removing current category tree. Support creating a parallel one. Commons definitely should be used to provide educational media, which is categorised to the detail that is required for the use. The problem is that there are two different uses: 1) A person searching for any good picture of a tram, 2) An individual looking for a very specific image. Current system already helps the second, but makes it almost impossible to work for the first. Category intersection or "category with all subcategories" view would resolve this problem, however, currently the only way forward does seem to be two (or more) different category trees, with images residing in both. Sinnamon (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
From what I'm seeing we seem to be getting close to consensus here. I think we currently have three choices: do nothing, move all files to tram model category, or have a system of parallel categerising systems. I feel that as others have said, the commons is meant to be about educational value, and no such value is found in the current system (or the categorising by number system for that matter), but would like to propose a middle ground possibility that I hope is most palatable for all.
What I suggest is that we move Category:Trams in Prague by registration number from Category:Trams in Prague to Category:Tram transport in Prague, we would now have two categorisation systems sitting side by side. First: Category:Trams in Prague which would have pretty much all the current categories, but they would be populated by pictures of that model of tram, I imagine it would look like this: (an indent signifies a level of nesting categories)
- Category:Trams in Prague
- Category:Tatra T3 in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3s in Prague
- Category:Tatra T3 driving school trams in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3 driving school trams in Prague
- Category:Tatra T3 service trams in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3 service trams in Prague
- Category:Tatra T3G in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3Gs in Prague
- Category:Tatra T3M in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3Ms in Prague
- Category:Tatra T3 in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3s in Prague
- (and so on for all tram models, treating sub classes separate and not nested)
And a second category Category:Trams in Prague by registration number -> populated as it is But... text would be added to the top of the page, indicating what number range each tram type belongs to, with a link to Trams in Prague by registration number. What I'm thinking could be added to the top would be something along the lines of this:
- This category has all trams in Prague listed by fleet number. Their model type and number range have been listed below. For more information please see: Trams in Prague by registration number
- Tatra T3 numbers: 6092 - 6992 (many of these vehicles have been rebuilt as Tatra T3M)
- Tatra T3SU numbers: 7001 - 7020 (originally built for the Soviet Union)
- Tatra T3SUCS numbers: 7021 - 7292 (originally built for the Soviet Union - some have been rebuilt as Tatra T3R PLF)
- Tatra T3M numbers: 8005 - 8106 (rebuilt from Tatra T3)
- Tatra T3R.PV numbers: 8151 - 8185
- Tatra T3R.P numbers: 8211 - 8579
- etc etc.
It would mean that all pictures of a type/class/model of tram are in one folder, while preserving and adding to the interpretation of the categorisation by number scheme. I would also like to add that the page Trams in Prague by registration number conveys all the information the current category system does, but is much more accessible, easier to understand, and navigate than a nest of categories we currently have. What are peoples thoughts on this? Liamdavies (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- At first I would like to thanks ŠJů, that he send me a notice with link to this discussion. I have no idea, why creator of this discussion didn't do this, but it looks really impolite for me…
- I think, that system of categorization which uses registration numbers, is really useful, because there are many differences between trams in each type and this category tree is only possible way, how to find pictures of tram, which you want. For example special door opening systems in some T3SUCS or T3M, air conditions, three types of doors or another orientation system and outside displays in some 15T trams. Another reason are trams with advertisements etc.
- I fully understand, that it is necessary to have a category with images usable into articles; because of this I created Category:Quality images of trams in Prague and Trams in Prague, where you can find best images…
- If someone thinks, that it is really necessary to have category with all trams of one type, I think, that best idea is leave todays tree and create category like Category:Tatras T3M in Prague and put all pictures of T3M into this category (or add to all images Category:Tatra T3M in Prague).
- But as was written above by ŠJů, categorization tree by registration numbers have much reasons and it is useful. I can understand that someone, who is not into trams this looks like mess and plenty of useless categories, but in fact mess is one category with 800 pictures of Tatra T3R.P.
- So best idea is leave todays tree and built parallel categorization if someone thinks, that it is more useful than one category and gallery with pictures, which is possible use in articles. — Jagro (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Jagro, I meant no offense to you, I just did was I was instructed with the template on who to inform and how. I will however start by saying that I understand trams very well and am very knowledgeable on the subject. Regarding your points: 1) The pages you list contain only 107 images out of over 2000, not good enough. 2) The searching you highlight is not possible, there is no sorting by door count, AC, or anything other than model type/subtype and vehicle number, both of these can be addressed by a single list. 3) You are greatly exaggerating the amount of pictures that would be in the category you used as an example, there would be less than half the number you give (some where around 390, which is only a couple of pages, quite manageable) and you're favoured system of over categarisation would still be around, every tram would still be in a cat by number. Every tram would be findable by number, but all photos would be grouped by model or concept (interior etc) rather than by number, finding pictures would be easier. The reason the number cats have to be removed from model cats is for policy: COM:OVERCAT forbids it. Liamdavies (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Liamdavies, I try to understand your proposals. I'm not sure that I understand all your thoughts but the main of them show that you didn't comprehend some of the most basic principles of categorization. That's not a good ground for our discussions about our dilemmas.
- You suggested to move Trams in Prague by registration number from Trams in Prague to Category:Tram transport in Prague. Did you really not comprehend the relation between these two categories yet? Category:Tram transport in Prague is the parent category covering all aspect of tram transport in Prague (trams, infrastructure, organization, staff, service vehicles etc.) and Trams in Prague is a specific subcategory for tram vehicles. Trams in Prague by registration number is apparently a category of tram vehicles and that's why it appertains certainly into Trams in Prague as its meta-subcategory. This your proposal is totally nonsensical.
- Your draft of category scheme is a bit incomprehensible for me. What should mean "Category:Tatra T3 in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3s in Prague"? Are you proposing a renaming of the categories from standard simple names to more complicated ones? Are you trying to explain that Category:Tatra T3 in Prague should not include subcategories of Tatra T3 trams in Prague? Are you proposing that categories of Tatra T3 subtypes shouldn't be subcategories of the Tatra T3 category? I strongly oppose all three these proposals because they violate standard principles of categorization.
- As I can see, you utterly didn't understand what is called "over-categorization". Over-categorization is not a term for too detailed categorization. The fact that some categories contain only one file or one subcategory doesn't base overcategorization. Over-categorization is a term for one kind of violation of modularity principle of categorization. Regrettably, just such overcategorization is proposed by you. If any image of tram is put into the category of this vehicle, the category of the vehicle have to be also properly categorized (by type etc.). When you categorize the image also directly by type, you are commiting exemplary overcategorization. If you are proposing to remove all categories of indivudial vehicles from the category of their type, such change would be a next flagrant violation of categorization principles and a nonsensical break of category structure. If we would implement this your proposal, the categories of individual vehicles would lose most of their sense and usefulness and the categorization of tram vehicles would become chaotic and unmaintainable (some of images would be categorized only by one way, some only by the second way). Strict application of modularity principle should prevent such chaos. The current system of categorization by fleet number is very simple, friendly and helpful even for easy maintenance.
- Your proposal to add the explanation of number series by type at the top of category page(s) is reasonable and such overview can be helpful especially for any uploader/editor when he is creating a new category of individual vehicle and want to categorize it properly. However, such description have no impact to the category structure. A possible way how to make the categorization even more simply would be to remove the overview category Trams in Prague by registration number and to categorize the categories of individual vehicles only by type (a number would be searchable using this overview description) – however, IMHO also this category is useful and should be kept.
- Jagro, your proposal to create Category:Tatras T3M in Prague (as a subcategory of Category:Tatra T3M in Prague?) is very nonstandard and such category name is not just clear. All categories of vehicles by type are intended for images of vehicles of the corresponding type but we use not plural of the brand name. The two category names proposed by you don't express the distinction you want to reach. This proposal is not a suitable way how to compensate (trick) disadvantages of modularity principle of categorization. The modularity is not a specific problem of trams but it concerns whatever item. If we have hundreds of photos from any town, uncategorized view of them is better for some usages, and detailed categorization structure by street, building or season is better for another usages. We should not solve this dilemma by overcategorization as you want to do. As was said above many times, the usable solutions are:
- to create "category with all subcategories" view as a systematic software solution. I think, such functionality is urgently required for all types of categories (not only trams).
- to create desired subcategories by view or by part (Interiors of Tatra T3, Headlamps of Škoda 14T, Doors of Tatra T3, Front views of Tatra KT8D5 etc.) - some of such categories rather at the worldwide level rather than at the Prague level. --ŠJů (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- ŠJů, stop telling me I don't understand, or don't know. It's insulting and patronising. There is a huge difference between understanding and agreeing. I understand why you want it I just don't agree. But despite that, I am trying to think of ways to make your system work, I don't feel the same can be said of you. You are not giving helpful ideas, just rubbishing others and bringing up off topic ideas, like a category of tram roofs (which I haven't asked for and don't want). I understand COM:OVERCAT, you just didn't understand what I meant(I could have said it better, sorry). We can't have all photos of Tatra T3s in Category:Tatra T3 in Prague AND have all of the Category:Tram XXXX (Prague) categories in there as well, that is against COM:OVERCAT.
- When I say "Category:Tatra T3 in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3s in Prague" I mean that the category named "Category:Tatra T3 in Prague" would be full of pictures of Tatra T3s (but NOT subclasses) and so on.
- I would like you to answer this one question (yes or no please), would you be ok with a category that has all the photos of a certain type of tram in it, for example a category that has all the photos of Prague Tatra T3s in it? This is what I and others want, a category of tram roofs is not what I want, or what I think is proper, that's not to say you can't do that, I don't mind, but what I want is ONE place that contains ALL the photos of a certain type of tram. If you oppose this (and just oppose this, other category issues can be sorted out later) please state why, also please be concise, you don't need to insult me or write 1000 words, just one paragraph outlining your problems would be sufficient. If we can get some level of agreement on this one simple issue, then we can work out how to make that happen, if you don't agree I feel we are not going to reach a conclusion and will bring this up at Commons:Dispute resolution and seek outside mediation. Liamdavies (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Jagro, your proposal to create Category:Tatras T3M in Prague (as a subcategory of Category:Tatra T3M in Prague?) is very nonstandard and such category name is not just clear. All categories of vehicles by type are intended for images of vehicles of the corresponding type but we use not plural of the brand name. The two category names proposed by you don't express the distinction you want to reach. This proposal is not a suitable way how to compensate (trick) disadvantages of modularity principle of categorization. The modularity is not a specific problem of trams but it concerns whatever item. If we have hundreds of photos from any town, uncategorized view of them is better for some usages, and detailed categorization structure by street, building or season is better for another usages. We should not solve this dilemma by overcategorization as you want to do. As was said above many times, the usable solutions are:
- Liamdavies, the principles that
- 1) a subitem have to be a subcategory of the higher item
- 2) a file or category should be properly categorized into the most specific categories that fits them
- 3) categories are defined by item and contain both files and categories which appertain to the item
- are bacis principles of wiki categorization of Commons. It is not some "my" system but system of Commons. Staying on these principles should not be called "insulting" or "patronising". Implementation of your proposals would severely disturb standard logic of categorization. I understand that the modular system of categorization have its disadvantages. However, it's not a sufficient reason to break, violate and ignore the system. I understand that the detailed categorization of trams is not only useful but also complicating for some kinds of usage. Such categorization is maybe too detailed but not incorrect nor nonsensical, unlike your proposals. I'm convinced that advantages of systematic detailed categorization of hundreds photos of Prague trams are not negligible and disadvantages are not so grave and eccentric that would be a reason for destruction and depreciation of this big work. If some vehicle have its own category, then the category have to by properly categorized by type of vehicle and all the inclused photos must not be categorized directly by type, because they are categorized through the category of the vehicle and the direct categorization would be exemplary overcategorization. I'm conscious that such overcategorization (to pour photos from all subcategories to one big unstructured group) is attractive and invited for you (and maybe, sometimes also for me) but such solution is fundamentally incompatible with categorization principles which prefer structured content and refuse overcategorization. (ONE place really should contain ALL the photos and subcategories of a certain type of tram, but it doesn't mean that the photos shouldn't be in appropriate subcategories.) Your desire should be fulfil rather by some software tool which would enable to browse subcategories in such way. If you would understand the above written arguments promptly, we must not to repeat them in circles in 1000s words. --ŠJů (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a problem that we encounter often and that is not fully recognised. Basically, technical people want the most precise and deep categorisation as possible. Many other people just want big categories as to be able to do visual search. While tools like catscan (tab) can help, it is still not always very practical. And indeed, the more specialised the categories are getting, the more problems one has with "tourist" users that probably need hours to find out in what categories their "tram image" need to be categorised correctly and completely (there is hopefully only one single tram operator, so it could be worse ;). We've got very long discussions on that in Category:Churches in Belgium, and in many other heavily populated categories. The problem often gets worse because of COM:OVERCAT fundamentalists. So far, the best compromise we could come up with is:
- Keep the main category just for all (visually appealing) images, so all people can categorise and find them without any structural and specialist knowledge.
- Put the specialists category aside by grouping them in "item by xxx" categories.
This is not perfect as you don't necessarily want on the top level technical details of components or interiors, but as stated, it is a compromise. In the past, we have already discussed ideas to be able to tag some images as most representative/best/postcard type/... and to allow category displays to filter on that, but software development on wikipedia seems to be halted since years, at least on Commons. Note that we have very often a similar problem to create long flat lists (people by name, ships/aircraft by registration number, ...), but this is easier to solve with "xxx by yyy" categories. Alternatively, one could think of a category called "trams running in Prague operated by xxx operator", as to avoid overcat fundamentalists. --Foroa (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Place each image into both <tramnumber> in Prague and < big cat > trams in Prague, even though one is a subcat of the other. Ignore WP:OVERCAT where it is interpreted that no item should ever be included in a transitive supercategory. The reason is that each category here has a different use case: < big cat > is something like the tram model type, route or location (useful to many groups), whilst <tramnumber> is for tram-spotting individuals. Not my interest, not something I'd put interest into categorising (for mundane trams at least), but nor should I dismantle someone else's work in building such a category tree.
- As noted at the top, MW has many extensions such as DPL for making categories more powerful. However they won't be happening on WMF projects for good performance reasons. Sadly there's also a problem at WP especially, where categories are neither understood, nor used well. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, I think you're both thinking a little to broadly, having all photos of all trams in Prague in one category would be unusably big, and finding good images would be just as hard as know due to information overload, Category:Churches in Belgium looks a little to broad for what I want. There would be 12 pages of images! I want one place where all photos of just one tram type are located, so I want all 140 images of Prague 15Ts to be in the category Category:Škoda 15T in Prague. I don't care one way or another if they are also categorised by fleet number, the reason I wanted to upmerge was to avoid COM:OVERCAT, that is the same reason I have proposed to move the fleet number categorisation system to another tree. But everything I have said has been slammed, I don't feel that ŠJů wants to discuss anyone of having all the photos of all the same type of tram in one place. If people think it is ok to COM:OVERCAT to make the images viewable in both cats I'm fine with that. Is there a way we can get BOTS to do this work? Or must it be done manually? I'd also like to add that cat scan seems quite broken for displaying images, only a hand full show up. Liamdavies (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Foroa, the systematic overcategorization proposed by you is not a compromise but disabling and devaluation of the current system. One of its main functions is that every vehicle can be simply and infallibly categorized by type through the fleet number. Such categorization of images is very easily usable also for non-experts. Duplication and shattering of the category structure would bring only chaos - some images would be categorized only by the first system, some images only by the second one, as is typical for disorganized duplicite categorization. That's why the categorization should be modular and overcategorization is generally disapproved. I'm not a COM:OVERCAT fundamentalist – in some cases overcategorization is useful and harmless, but this is evidently not such case. I absolutely understand that overcategorization can be attractive and tempting for many users in many cases but this knowledge we have had even when the rule against overcategorization became received. Modular categorization is a bit uncomfortable for some types of usage but chaos is not an acceptable alternative. If the detailed categorization by fleet number would be completely meaningless and purposeless, I would also support to destroy and remove this level, but this is not such a case. --ŠJů (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- You obviously did not read what I wrote; it remains a fact that categorisation tends to go deeper and deeper, thereby hindering and rendering it sometimes useless for the generalists' needs, especially in regards with visual search. What this discussion has shown as well, is that no matter what solutions we will try to find, it will never cover the needs of all users. Obviously, we need more dynamic tools. For me, Catscan works like a charm (if all toolservers are running correctly), when it can stay below 1000 images (an old restriction for systems 10 years ago). --Foroa (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- As ŠJů notes, cat by tramnumber is useful because it's often clear (although not for most photos taken some time ago, as these numbers aren't always obvious) it's certainly unambiguous and it also has a strong implication for model number. So the Škoda 15T in Prague category begins to approach being a meta-cat. However it would still do nothing for trams by location, or even by route. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Foroa, the systematic overcategorization proposed by you is not a compromise but disabling and devaluation of the current system. One of its main functions is that every vehicle can be simply and infallibly categorized by type through the fleet number. Such categorization of images is very easily usable also for non-experts. Duplication and shattering of the category structure would bring only chaos - some images would be categorized only by the first system, some images only by the second one, as is typical for disorganized duplicite categorization. That's why the categorization should be modular and overcategorization is generally disapproved. I'm not a COM:OVERCAT fundamentalist – in some cases overcategorization is useful and harmless, but this is evidently not such case. I absolutely understand that overcategorization can be attractive and tempting for many users in many cases but this knowledge we have had even when the rule against overcategorization became received. Modular categorization is a bit uncomfortable for some types of usage but chaos is not an acceptable alternative. If the detailed categorization by fleet number would be completely meaningless and purposeless, I would also support to destroy and remove this level, but this is not such a case. --ŠJů (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting discussion. If I may make some suggestions: Put the unidentified trams (no fleet number) in a higher category. No need to have "unidentified" categories. I also have problems with tram stop categories, wich are useless without local knowledge. A handy category would be by tramline number wich are more easily researched (trammaps etc). Examples: (Basel tram line 10, Basel tram line 8). But please dont make it a list of tram stop categories. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- For purposes of maintenance, there is useful to distinguish images which were checked but are not simply indentifiable and images of trams which can be simply identifiable but were not sorted in depth yet (or have not their own subcategory yet). I think, such conception of categories of unidentified subjects is standardly used in case of geographical categories, bionomic categories, categories of vehicles etc. and is proven and very useful. "Unidentified" (in the category name) means "checked but the identification was not succesfull yet", "not simply identifiable".
- Categories of tram lines would be also possible (for the future) but i think, Prague tram lines have not so distinctive specific identity to be urgent to create their categories. However, its possible for the future. The individual vehicles are more tied to their depot than to the line (but also the category "Trams in Prague by depot" would be not useful enough to be needed).
- As regards Prague tram stop categories, they should be categorized also by street name & tram track section and the streets and tram track sections should be categorized by Prague district etc. Tram lines in Prague are often changed and are not so stable to be used as a skeleton of tram stop categorization. I think, Category:Tram tracks in Prague is a good base for localization of tram-related images and I feel no need of split their content to with-trams/without-trams subcategories. For the future, we can use some stop lists with links like here in railway track category or create some interactive map as a navbox. --ŠJů (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- I arrived lat to the party, but apparently the suggestion of removing the fleet number categories was dropped, or at least postponed — good!
- It always frustrates me a lot when someone demands that the work of other editors should be undone because they cannot find their pretty pics — users who think that 2000 images all in the same category is a good thing because they can “browse” it (typically flying away contented with the 1st shiny object before it even reaches "B"). The problem here is not having a category for each vehicle — that is indeed part of the solution (only a part), the problem it solves being that we have 2000 known images of Prague trams. However, while the number of such categories will only grow as new photos are tagged (or when the city enlarges its fleet), the number of photos to be categorized will grow — a lot! Those 3000 could be 30000 in 10 yrs, because new images are added, uncategorized images are tagged, and old images fall in PD — and then instead of an average of 2 images in each category, you’ll have 15 or 20.
- The rest of the solution is to add more metacategories under the main (take a look at this: Category:Trams in Lisbon, still not perfect, but going there) — sort them not only by fleet number, but also by model, route, date, time of the day, time of the year, location, status, attitude, et c., et c. Each photo should have a dozen such categories, and the pages for those categories will allow any kind of search to be made, filtered to oh so many kinds of preset descriptions. (Should some still just want to be fed an unfiltered slideshow of Prague trams to gaze at, it is already here.)
- -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Tuválkin, you misunderstand what I was requesting. No where did I request that all 2000 images be dumped into one huge category, that would be stupid. What I want is for each image to be in a category for its class, so that one can view all Skoda 15Ts operating in Prague, rather than have to trawl through 43 categories to look at the 148 images they contain. An example (on a smaller scale) of what I'm requesting is at Category:Trams in Melbourne by class. Conversely I would point to Category:Cable cars in San Francisco to show what an unorganised mess, riddled with OVERCAT this overly precise scheme becomes when there is no one to maintain it. Liamdavies (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- I’m glad you don’t want to remove the fleet number categorization after all. It would be a shame to have to redo all that categorization work again whenever we have 2000 images of Skoda 15Ts in Prague. Seriously, I think that COM:OVERCAT does not apply in these cases, although IMO a hidden cat (Category:All Skoda 15Ts) should be created for this. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care if the images are have a cat for their number or not, my main problem is that the whole tram by registration number cat tree is more category that file. All it's function could be done by a single page. In fact we already have that page -> Trams in Prague by registration number, this page fulfils all the duties that the whole tree does. And yes, COM:OVERCAT is/would be a problem, as I said look at Category:Cable cars in San Francisco. Liamdavies (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- As appeared, you didn't understand that too detailed and systematic categorization is not COM:OVERCAT. COM:OVERCAT is exactly that what you demand: to use any less specific category instead of the most specific category (in addition, you try to disturb logical modular structure of categorization). I undestand that many users like overcategorization but it is not good solution and is not recommended generally. You should rather request more effective tools for browsing and display of subcategories. --ŠJů (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- ŠJů, stop telling me I don't understand things, when you have clearly misread what I'm saying. I'll go over it again: Tuválkin said: "I think that COM:OVERCAT does not apply in these cases" I responded: "yes, COM:OVERCAT is/would be a problem" (meaning that yes, having photo in both parent and child cat is COM:OVERCAT, and would be a problem, clearly that means that I understand), and then I additionally gave an example of where this style of categorisation has broken down, and is now in a mess of COM:OVERCAT: "as I said look at Category:Cable cars in San Francisco." It would be helpful if you would not simply tell me that I don't understand all the time (you have done that several times in this thread), it's patronising to be told that you don't understand, it's like someone telling you you're to stupid to have a view. Would you reread what I have said, and please either strike-through your incorrect statements, or offer an apology? Liamdavies (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- As appeared, you didn't understand that too detailed and systematic categorization is not COM:OVERCAT. COM:OVERCAT is exactly that what you demand: to use any less specific category instead of the most specific category (in addition, you try to disturb logical modular structure of categorization). I undestand that many users like overcategorization but it is not good solution and is not recommended generally. You should rather request more effective tools for browsing and display of subcategories. --ŠJů (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care if the images are have a cat for their number or not, my main problem is that the whole tram by registration number cat tree is more category that file. All it's function could be done by a single page. In fact we already have that page -> Trams in Prague by registration number, this page fulfils all the duties that the whole tree does. And yes, COM:OVERCAT is/would be a problem, as I said look at Category:Cable cars in San Francisco. Liamdavies (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I’m glad you don’t want to remove the fleet number categorization after all. It would be a shame to have to redo all that categorization work again whenever we have 2000 images of Skoda 15Ts in Prague. Seriously, I think that COM:OVERCAT does not apply in these cases, although IMO a hidden cat (Category:All Skoda 15Ts) should be created for this. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Tuválkin, you misunderstand what I was requesting. No where did I request that all 2000 images be dumped into one huge category, that would be stupid. What I want is for each image to be in a category for its class, so that one can view all Skoda 15Ts operating in Prague, rather than have to trawl through 43 categories to look at the 148 images they contain. An example (on a smaller scale) of what I'm requesting is at Category:Trams in Melbourne by class. Conversely I would point to Category:Cable cars in San Francisco to show what an unorganised mess, riddled with OVERCAT this overly precise scheme becomes when there is no one to maintain it. Liamdavies (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- When two or more people don't achieve identic posture, it's important to recognize whether they don't understand each other or whether they understand but assert different solution only. If your current problem is that "the whole tram by registration number cat tree is more category that file", it is a false problem. If the content is categorized, it should be categorized systematically, not randomly. When some item is categorized "by country", we create often also some country categories for one or two images. The fact, that the categories of nowadays trams are structurally joined with categories of identic trams before their reconstruction and renumbering, is also a clear benefit. Don't waste our time with decimation of this big work. I understand and share your problem with too fragmented content but up to now, none of your proposals was compatible with basic principles of categorization. Such solution could be to remove all fleet number categories but as was said here, hunderds of images of identic type shouldn't be poured together to one unstructured heap. Maybe I also don't understand you: what OVERCAT problem you see in Category:Cable cars in San Francisco?
- The real problem is that Commons doesn't offer an effective tool to display images from subcategories. We should strive to solve that problem. I believe, we should not solve the problem with unsystematic methods like overcategorization (a flat category for the type) or violation of modular principle of categorization (to not categorize categories of individual trams by their type) or replace the functional category structure with a "single page". --ŠJů (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have never suggested a random structure for categorisation, I think you fail to fully understand what I am saying. I understand your points, but you fail to understand mine. If you don't see an overcat problem at Category:Cable cars in San Francisco it means you haven't properly had a look. Look again, and this time rather than actually opening the cat, saying all good and closing it - look. Liamdavies (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I had a look to Category:Cable cars in San Francisco and I see no overcategorization in the category structure not even overcategorized images. Could you specify what you consider to be overcategorization? Are you sur you understand what "overcategorization" is? --ŠJů (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, you must have looked really hard. The second image: File:11 Cable Car on Powell St, SF, CA, jjron 25.03.2012.jpg is clearly overcat, as are many many more. Either you aren't even trying and are just paying lip service or think I am an absolute moron, or both. Liamdavies (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- No comment yet ŠJů? Do you not understand? Maybe if I spell it out: you see (if you open your eyes and actually click on links) the image File:11 Cable Car on Powell St, SF, CA, jjron 25.03.2012.jpg is in both Category:San Francisco cable car no. 11 and Category:Cable cars in San Francisco (as are many others) , this is COM:OVERCAT. You may not understand due to either: being so pig headed as to think everything I write is wrong; or you are a complete moron - your choice, which is it? I understand that actually pretending to take what I say seriously may be difficult, as is investigating anything I point out, but please bear with me, or do you not understand? Liamdavies (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that image File:11 Cable Car on Powell St, SF, CA, jjron 25.03.2012.jpg, categorized both as one of Category:San Francisco cable car no. 11 and Category:Cable cars in San Francisco is obviously overcategorized (as the latter includes the former as one of its direct offspring) — however its correction is trivial and its current state is harmless. What is neither trivial to repair nor is harmelss, however, is what you have been doing in the last couple hours, things like «−Category:Tatra T3 in Prague; −Category:Trams in Prague by registration number; Category:Tatra T3 in Prague by registration number». You were told above to keep your hands off established categorization and create your own concurrent tree in parallel — any overcategorization could be fixed later. You prefer to go on the path of confront, against the clearly expressed wishes of your peers and have been dismantling their work in what borders vandalism. You should stop at once, and start putting back all those removed categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sju said they could not see any overcat, I clearly proved they are not listening to a word I am saying, I will therefore disregard all that they say; I am simply paying Sju the same respect they have paid me: zero. I am not undoing any categorisation. I am creating a parallel tree of categorisation. Liamdavies (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are removing categories from file pages (that’s the minus sign in the edit summary I quoted above), stop that at once, and start undoing it. Creating a new tree means adding new categories to file pages (the plus sign), you are welcome to keep doing that — like said, any overcategorization can be fixed later. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have not removed a single category from a file. Please show a diff where I have. I have been moving categories, but that is to more specific categories (remember specificity is good) and it removes overcat. Liamdavies (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- This diff, the 1st I checked, as all possible others, as given by the edit summary. When you say «I have been moving categories» that’s exactly what are you being told to stop doing. Add, do not move. This is serious, Liam. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's a category, not a file. I will reiterate, I am not undoing any categorisation, I am solidifying the existing system, while implementing a parallel tree, as suggested by many in this CfD. Liamdavies (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Stop removing parent categories, from either filepages and child categories. Start adding back those you removed. Overcategorization will be corrected later, in a way that addresses both your concerns and ours. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's a category, not a file. I will reiterate, I am not undoing any categorisation, I am solidifying the existing system, while implementing a parallel tree, as suggested by many in this CfD. Liamdavies (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- This diff, the 1st I checked, as all possible others, as given by the edit summary. When you say «I have been moving categories» that’s exactly what are you being told to stop doing. Add, do not move. This is serious, Liam. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have not removed a single category from a file. Please show a diff where I have. I have been moving categories, but that is to more specific categories (remember specificity is good) and it removes overcat. Liamdavies (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are removing categories from file pages (that’s the minus sign in the edit summary I quoted above), stop that at once, and start undoing it. Creating a new tree means adding new categories to file pages (the plus sign), you are welcome to keep doing that — like said, any overcategorization can be fixed later. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sju said they could not see any overcat, I clearly proved they are not listening to a word I am saying, I will therefore disregard all that they say; I am simply paying Sju the same respect they have paid me: zero. I am not undoing any categorisation. I am creating a parallel tree of categorisation. Liamdavies (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that image File:11 Cable Car on Powell St, SF, CA, jjron 25.03.2012.jpg, categorized both as one of Category:San Francisco cable car no. 11 and Category:Cable cars in San Francisco is obviously overcategorized (as the latter includes the former as one of its direct offspring) — however its correction is trivial and its current state is harmless. What is neither trivial to repair nor is harmelss, however, is what you have been doing in the last couple hours, things like «−Category:Tatra T3 in Prague; −Category:Trams in Prague by registration number; Category:Tatra T3 in Prague by registration number». You were told above to keep your hands off established categorization and create your own concurrent tree in parallel — any overcategorization could be fixed later. You prefer to go on the path of confront, against the clearly expressed wishes of your peers and have been dismantling their work in what borders vandalism. You should stop at once, and start putting back all those removed categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- No comment yet ŠJů? Do you not understand? Maybe if I spell it out: you see (if you open your eyes and actually click on links) the image File:11 Cable Car on Powell St, SF, CA, jjron 25.03.2012.jpg is in both Category:San Francisco cable car no. 11 and Category:Cable cars in San Francisco (as are many others) , this is COM:OVERCAT. You may not understand due to either: being so pig headed as to think everything I write is wrong; or you are a complete moron - your choice, which is it? I understand that actually pretending to take what I say seriously may be difficult, as is investigating anything I point out, but please bear with me, or do you not understand? Liamdavies (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have never suggested a random structure for categorisation, I think you fail to fully understand what I am saying. I understand your points, but you fail to understand mine. If you don't see an overcat problem at Category:Cable cars in San Francisco it means you haven't properly had a look. Look again, and this time rather than actually opening the cat, saying all good and closing it - look. Liamdavies (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
@Liamdavies: Before my previous reply, I checked cca 20 random images from the category Category:Cable cars in San Francisco and none of them was overcategorized. You are right, File:11 Cable Car on Powell St, SF, CA, jjron 25.03.2012.jpg was really ovecategorized and I fixed it immediatelly (why you didn't so?). Your notice was fully answered by Tuválkin and I have nothing to commment on that. That was an indivudual error of the uploader, not systematic error of the categorization structure there.
You make efforts to cause similar but more grave errors with Prague trams. You are damaging massively the categorization structure. Stop it immediately! You caused lots of errors: most of T3M trams dissapeared from the T3M category, most of T3 trams dissapeared from the category of trams by registration number etc. You are evidently not able to understand basic categorization principles and categorization structure, please calm your activites at this field. --ŠJů (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm almost finished. I need a break now, but will finish the rest latter. All cats now contain images of the vehicles they represent and the by number tree is (slowly) having all the overcat removed, and becoming far more structured. Do not despair if you fail to have the cognative ability to understand what I am doing, I do. If you feel you can improve the by number tree, please do so. Liamdavies (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- ŠJů, I can give a hand at putting back the categories he has been removing. (Off for dinner now.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Liamdavies, the new categories created by you can be acceptable and useful (though you started the moves without any previous discussion or even consensus on it). Unfortunately, you removed uselessly the sort number-keys when you moved the categories of individual trams. Also the emptying of the flat category of Prague trams by number was not discussed and not accepted in the discussion and because you devastated the sort keys, it would be very diffucult to restore the content. --ŠJů (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
@Liamdavies, Sinnamon, ŠJů, and Tuvalkin: Was consensus ever reached here? Can we close discussion? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Closing stale discussion. Lack of continued interest. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there is any difference between Category:Cement plants and the larger Category:Cement works. I don't care which way the merger goes, but they should be merged. Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support: Not that it's authoritative, but Google seems to think they are synonyms: Google cement works and you get results for both. Merge into "works" cos it already has a "by country" subcat --moogsi (blah) 21:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Done - if there's any difference between "cement plant", "cement works", and "cement factory", it wasn't reflected in the categories as they were --moogsi (blah) 12:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Reopened. Disagree. As far as I understood it (long time ago, cement plants was to manufacture cement (powder), cement works was to manufacturer things with cement. --Foroa (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was waaaay too quick with this one, thanks for undoing it.
- So it's LIMESTONE → sinter in a kiln → CLINKER → grind with gypsum → CEMENT. Whatever the place where all that is done is called, you can then put the cement into a concrete plant to make concrete. This is more of a single large machine, contrary to the more common meaning of the word "plant" as a whole factory. I think the only place you would take cement to be made into something else is a concrete factory/works where you would put it in a concrete plant... anyway I'll leave this open much longer this time :) --moogsi (blah) 13:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- If someone can make a clear distinction, put explanations on the categories that clarify the distinction, and sort the existing images accordingly, fine. But as far as I can tell, the two categories were being used interchangeably. - 01:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support merge to Cement works - cement works and cement plants and cement factories as terms all seem to be used for production of cement and production of items from cement (e.g bricks, pre-cast structures, etc). I don't think there is any value in separating these out. Since there isnt' consistency in real-world usage of these terms, we don't need to make an artificial distinction here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Need a clear definition and proper split-up. Many so called "cement works" are basically concrete plants, there might be an isolation between cement (limestone, ...) quarries and the actuel processing into cement. --Foroa (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- If it was possible, this would be a good idea - but in practice, since we're talking about global usage, there isn't consistency, so we can't impose such consistency in a category structure. Obviously creation of cement is a complex process but I don't think we need to create a complex category structure to capture every aspect of that process - especially given that the outside world does not distinguish in a clear or regular fashion between cement plants, cement factories, and cement works. If you can find evidence to the contrary, or any indication of some industry standard designation (e.g. a cement plant does this, a cement works does that), please provide it - I wasn't able to find. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, if there are any "true" definitions of the terms, then they should be defined at the category pages. Certainly no-one is quarrying cement so we can rule that out; wherever does the sintering and grinding is where the cement is made.
- I was going to suggest that "Cement plants" have a see-also to Category:Concrete plants, but that is full of concrete factories, rather than the more specific usage which I don't think it contradicts. It's not helped by the fact that when it comes to a substance, "plant", "factory" and "works" mean the same thing. E.g. a steelworks makes steel, it doesn't make steel into something else. There is also nothing stopping cement and concrete being made at the same facility, which might be a concrete factory? Is it also a cement factory? Will people know or care? --moogsi (blah) 12:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I created cement works categories and moved some of it properly. --Foroa (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Need a clear definition and proper split-up. Many so called "cement works" are basically concrete plants, there might be an isolation between cement (limestone, ...) quarries and the actuel processing into cement. --Foroa (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Moogsi, and Obiwankenobi: The two categories still exist, and neither has a definition included. Does that mean consensus was never reached? Any further thoughts on this issue? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I stand by my original statement that there is no generally understood distinction here, the categories should be merged one way or another, and I don't care which way. I wouldn't block any consensus, though. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Ok, may you please do the merge? BTW: I've just created Category:Historic cement works.--Cameron Kay (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cameron Kay: I would gladly do the merge if there is consensus which direction to do it!
- As indicated above, I'm inclined to use "plants" rather than "works", but consider it more important to have some decision. Would there be any objection to going to "plants", without precluding further discussion? - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: No objections in nearly 4 months. Please merge the categories as you have proposed. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've requested the main move at User:CommonsDelinker/commands. I'll still need to bring the subcats in line. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- All done. - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Cement plants merged to Category:Cement works. All subcategories that use "plant" or "plants" now switch to "works". Also, did some cleanup putting some categories within Category:Cement works by country that were directly under Category:Cement plants. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is helpful, "Paintings in Brazil by production area" particularly breaks the rule of keeping nationalities out of the category system. moogsi (blah) 02:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a rule of "keeping nationalities out of the category system? If there is, it clearly has never been in action. There are dozens of categories alike. I also see no reason why there should be such a rule. Dornicke (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't phrase this very well... there is no "rule" as such, but as far as artists and artwork go, there are no "French artists" or "British paintings". There are "Artists from France" and "Paintings from the United Kingdom". It seems like there is no difference, but I try to explain it in my post here. So no rules are being broken, but it is against established practice. My issue isn't with this category itself... I have probably nominated the wrong category for discussion here... it is more with the subcats:
- Category:Spanish paintings by country (→ Category:Paintings from Spain by country)
- Category:Paintings in Brazil by production area (which named fine but isn't "Paintings by production area by country". It's "Paintings by country by production area". Additionally the subcats are the ones with the problem I describe above and need renaming).
- The horrible thing about works of art is that there are 2 location trees:
- Production area (e.g. Category:Paintings by production area): the top is at the national level, the bottom is at the level of a town. The top is more interesting.
- Location: (e.g. Category:Paintings by location): the top is at the national level, the bottom is at the level of a room in a gallery. The bottom is more interesting.
- I say "more interesting" from the perspective of people using the category system to find media --moogsi (blah) 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't phrase this very well... there is no "rule" as such, but as far as artists and artwork go, there are no "French artists" or "British paintings". There are "Artists from France" and "Paintings from the United Kingdom". It seems like there is no difference, but I try to explain it in my post here. So no rules are being broken, but it is against established practice. My issue isn't with this category itself... I have probably nominated the wrong category for discussion here... it is more with the subcats:
- Rename Category:Paintings by area of production by country "by production area" is horribly unidiomatic English and unclear. It should be "by area of production", or perhaps "by cultural origin" or something. The objection to "Spanish paintings" etc is dubious, and certainly does not reflect normal practice in art history. "by current location" would make all these categories clearer than "by country". Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep we have about 30 cats with production area--Oursana (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, I'd like to summarize a number of issues here:
- 1) Do we want to keep this cross category tree of location and origin?
- 2) What should we call the sub-categories? How do we want to phrase the origin? e.g. Category:Spanish paintings in Germany or Category:Paintings from Spain in Germany
- 3) How do we want to phrase the metacategory description of origin? e.g. Category:Paintings in Germany by production area or Category:Paintings in Germany by area of production or Category:Paintings in Germany by origin
- 4) How do we want to phrase the metacategory description of location? e.g. Category:Spanish paintings by country or Category:Spanish paintings by current location pr Category:Spanish paintings by country of location
My opinions are 1) Yes, as Oursana has said, the category now has many sub-categories, and I think it's quite useful; 2) I think Moogsi's suggestions are right. "Spanish paintings" should be replaced with "Paintings from Spain" to follow the category tree (Category:Paintings from Spain) and to avoid using national adjectives. 3) This should be discussed at Category:Paintings by production area, not here. 4) The current category tree is at Category:Paintings by country of location and I think these should follow. If someone doesn't like "by country of location" it should be taken up at the base category, not here. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've moved this category to Category:Paintings by production area by country of location for the sake of clarity. I would now propose that it should simply be merged with Category:Paintings by country of location by production area. Since this discussion has had no further participation since my last comment in January, I may proceed and close in the near future. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to merge the two categories. We have many such "pairs" of metacategories. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please Themightyquill, merge as the two categories are essentially the same. Then, we should proceed to remove the national adjectives to ease classification by country, e.g. Category:Spanish paintings in Germany to Category:Paintings from Spain in Germany, and Category:Spanish paintings by country to Category:Paintings from Spain by country. --Ruthven (msg) 08:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to merge the two categories. We have many such "pairs" of metacategories. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I don't think they are the same at all. One is categorization based on where the art comes from. The other is, for the most part, the categorization of museum collections based on the location of the museum. There's no real need to distinguish between location and source for frescos, murals or building ornamentation. Public sculptures are maybe more complicated. We could mm I've most if the "art in country x" tree to "art in country x by museum or gallery" but we'd still have stuff left over. I would tend to agree, however, that subdividing by both origin and location only adds another layer of complexity with an intersection category tree, but I guess it could be useful too in done cases. Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there's a consensus to change anything here. Themightyquill's 2016 name change helped to clarify things. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I request all pre-2000 "YYYY in transport in Finland" to be deleted. There are so few pre-2000 transport related pictures (and so few pictures at all) taken in Finland from that consistent categorization is not possible and this kind of fine-grain categorization actually does more harm than good.
At the moment such categories are:
- Category:1928 in transport in Finland
- Category:1934 in transport in Finland
- Category:1950 in transport in Finland
- Category:1957 in transport in Finland
- Category:1972 in transport in Finland
- Category:1978 in transport in Finland
- Category:1979 in transport in Finland
- Category:1986 in transport in Finland
- Category:1987 in transport in Finland
- Category:1999 in transport in Finland
Some earlier discussions are available at User talk:J 1982#Unnecessary date categories.
There are similar categories also for other countries and they may need discussion as well.
––Apalsola t • c 10:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC) –– (typo fix) Apalsola t • c 17:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Adding some more similar categories (even more specific):
- ––Apalsola t • c 10:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Add "x year in transport in Finland" to "Bridges in Finland completed in x year", which will enlarge the category. J 1982 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I have no problem with transport by year categories. However, that does not necessarily mean that we need them for every country or for every epoch. Their creation should be warranted. And if we need a whole other category tree, Bridges in Finland completed in x year (the need for which is similarly debatable), just to make sure the first category tree is properly populated, then it seems to show that the first category tree isn't probably needed or appropriate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Whats it is problem with them? Obelix (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Apalsola was quite clear in his explanation of what (s)he believes the problem to be. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Some more similar categories added:
- Keep. With the aviation ones above, there is great potential to fill the cats, as there are very many thousands of aviation photos being worked on at the moment which are largely unclassified. The cats above are by no means completed as yet and are still work in progress. Until then the cats should remain. Also if this is being done across all countries, why should Finland be excluded. Part of classification by country is to allow comparisons across the world, ie including Finland. Ardfern (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Of course Finland should not be an exception. I think these categories should not be created for any country if there are only one or two images to be included to them. Finland is just an example of a small country with small amount of pre-2000 aviation related images or any pre-2000 images. (I have done a lot of categorization work regarding to Finland, so I am pretty sure that there are not massive amount uncategorized, pre-2000 images just lying there and waiting for categorization.) If, some day in the future, this situation changes, then we, of course should create these categories. But now this kind of too-detailed categorization just makes finding images harder. ––Apalsola t • c 09:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Some categories added:
- Added Category:1988 in aviation in Finland. ––Apalsola t • c 13:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Added Category:1953 in aviation in Finland. ––Apalsola t • c 23:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thoughts on decade cats to replace the current year-specific ones? --Pitke (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Added Category:1955 in aviation in Finland.) One possibility is to have "YEAR in aviation in Europe" and "Aviation in Finland in the DECADE" type of categorization for pre-2000. Anyway, this discussion has been open for nearly two years now, and the number of pictures in those categories has not (significantly) increased. So, I think the current categories are pretty useless.
- I also want to emphasize that this does not apply to Finland only but any similar (relatively) small country with small number of old images. Categorization (and even per-year categorization) is good, but we always have to bear in mind the rationale behind categorization: it is to make finding images easier. These kind of random, too-detailed categories with one or two images in them just work the other way round. ––Apalsola t • c 22:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Years later, most of these have enough images to be useful. Individual cases can be renominated (or just leave me a note). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Merge or rename to Category:Health in Armenia, and "Healthcare in Country X" to "Health in Country X" for all other countries.
I did a test nomination of Category:Healthcare in Afghanistan and it closed without any dispute. I am thus now nominating the rest of these duplicate categories, which aligns with similar discussions that happened last year and ended with the removal of the vast majority of "Healthcare in Country X" categories in english wikipedia.
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Healthcare_by_country
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_5#Category:Healthcare_in_England_by_county
The separation between health and healthcare at the country level is no longer used in en.wikipedia categories. I think the same logic applies to commons categories. In addition, if you peruse them, they are just as likely to have pictures of hospitals in the 'health' category as in the 'healthcare' category. For example:
- Category:Health in Germany, Category:Healthcare in Germany; - both contain images of buildings and healthcare services
- Category:Health in Indonesia, Category:Healthcare in Indonesia - both contain images of health and healthcare; leprosy is listed under health, but images of lepers are found under healthcare
- Category:Healthcare in the United Kingdom, Category:Health in the United Kingdom; both contain images of hospitals and other buildings of care; however NHS (which is the major provider of healthcare services) is under 'Health' and not 'Healthcare'
- Category:Health in the United States, Category:Healthcare in the United States: health cat has a number of images of healthcare; healthcare cat has images of health statistics;
- Category:Health in Uganda, Category:Health in Venezuela, Category:Health in Côte d'Ivoire - none of these cats even have a healthcare subcat. There are also countries that have healthcare category, but no health category. Note that the Israel category is the best example of the final outcome that I am proposing. Take a look at it and ask yourself, do I need this further subdivided into 'healthcare' and 'everything else'? Is it bothersome that a swine-flu outbreak is on the same level as a category about hospitals?
- Category:Health in Spain, Category:Healthcare in Spain - barely anything in the healthcare subcat; nurses/doctors/healthcare all in 'health'
- Category:Healthcare in Canada, Category:Health in Canada - almost everything is in Health; healthcare is just a few articles, so they seem to have made this shift already.
There is already a rich tree of various healthcare subcats that can and should be used, but a high-level distinction at the country level between health and healthcare is not needed. In cases where there are too many images, the solution should be to create subcats, like 'Hospitals' or 'Clinics' or 'Doctors' or 'Patients' - but a high-level separation between Health and Healthcare just ends up confusing editors, as you can see from the haphazard placement of items to date. Health can be seen as an outcome of Healthcare, so they are two sides of the same coin, and when it comes to classifying images, it is *not* useful to try to distinguish between the two - for example, to have HIV statistics under 'Health' but to have HIV treatment centers under 'Health care' and then HIV public campaigns back under 'Health'.
Finally, maintaining these categories as is poses challenging classification problems: for example, in a given image, a patient may be receiving healthcare, or may be becoming more healthy. In addition, as was discussed the other CfDs, it is actually rather difficult find a sharp line between health and healthcare - for example, where does medical research and education, or blood banks, or HIV activism, or health legislation, or public health messaging, or death from cancer go? I could cite many other examples where it is ambiguous, and definition of Wikipedia:Health and Wikipedia:healthcare is not necessarily of much help, since healthcare is the activity, and health is the result (thus two sides of the same coin). If you look at the haphazard classification used to date, it is clear that there is no common consensus or understanding by commons editors on whether a given image is about 'healthcare' or about 'health' - so you end up having to search both categories, and the distinction doesn't help at all - it only confuses.
At the end of the day, in order to make it easy for users to find and classify the images they are looking for, we have two choices:
- accept the status quo, spend some time to come up with a long list of definitions as to what is healthcare and what is health, then go through all of these categories fixing things, and spend the next few years monitoring it to make sure images don't go awry, and force users to pay the penalty of themselves having to understand this subtle and inconsistently applied "difference" between the health and healthcare categories
- Or, merge the categories.
Thus for now, I am proposing a full merge of these categories to 'Health in X'. It is probably cleaner to delete 'Healthcare in X', but we could also keep a redirect. I welcome your thoughts and comments. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I found several more Healthcare in X cats, usually for national sub-divisions; I have added them to this CfD for consistency and completeness.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- When looking in those cats that are really populated (Germany, France, ...), there is indeed a serious mixup, but they deserve to remain split-up. Experience shows that merges for simplification are very often undone later as they become too crowded. A proper split seems not so difficult, documentation might seem more complicated, although to me, healthcare is the main cat in the sense that it concerns organising and doing things related to the health of people, and will be quickest populated in the short term. I think that with a minimum of documentation and making sure that all the root and by country categories are properly organised, the correct structures will propagate in an organic way to the deeper categories. --Foroa (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Foroa. I can see your POV, but I have considered this issue deeply, including through the process of cleaning up this mess in the en.wikipedia, and I am convinced that there is no value to be gained by trying to define such a separation - for categorization purposes - between health and healthcare. You say "healthcare is the main cat in the sense that it concerns organising and doing things related to the health of people" - in this case, what then remains for "health"? For example, is exercise "health" or "healthcare"? In some cases, exercise is prescribed by a doctor, so is a form of care or treatment for an ailment; in other cases, it is used for maintenance of good health, thus not technically healthcare... Let me give you another example:
- A picture of someone with a disease - this is a condition of the human body, so we put under 'health'
- The same picture of the same person, but we've zoomed out and realize they're in a clinic being treated, so we put under 'healthcare'
- The same picture of the same person, but they're now relaxing in the hospital feeling better and sharing a smile with their family - it is thus an image of wellness, and thus we put under 'health'
- Now the same picture, but the doctor walked into the room to discuss the treatment options - now again we're back in 'healthcare'
- Thus, 4 pictures of the same person taken 5 minutes apart could potentially be categorized in different places only based on a few changes in scenery. This doesn't make sense to me.
- Another example is just to consider the huge breadth of types of content that are out there - such as graphs of health status, graphics on treatment status (would those be split between health and healthcare?), public health campaigns (is this health or healthcare? even the experts don't agree on that); blood banks, medical research institutes (which may do research into the basic functioning of human health, but may also do research into treatments), social security and insurance (is that healthcare since it's about how you pay for treatment, or is it health as it's about the overall health status of a population? both!), etc etc etc. At the end of the day, there is no simple rule you can apply, you would end up having to make a long list, and in many cases arbitrarily just decide "X = health, Y = healthcare" (arbitrary since health and healthcare are two sides of the same coin), and it is a pretty sure guarantee that the editors won't even follow those rules in any case, making it someone else's job for the rest of time to clean it up. Yes, there are clear-cut cases like a surgery, but for every clear cut case there are dozens of edge cases that could be argued either way. And that is the crux of the problem.
- As to your point that the merge may create crowded categories, allow me to suggest that creation of sub-categories (eg. hospitals, doctors, etc) will easily de-clutter any top level category. If you can come up with a simple (or even a complex!) heuristic for sorting a given image as 'health' or 'healthcare' please share it, I have tried and I have asked many other editors, in vain - no one over several CFDs ever came up with one that came even close to covering the numerous edge cases, or that would provide an editor or a searcher with a simple way to say "when looking for image X, check category Y". Here are a few more images I found browsing one of the categories, and for each one I could make a cogent argument to place it in health, and in healthcare: "a vaccination campaign sign, a sign encouraging people to get tested for HIV, a meeting on health and healthcare policy, a lab worker with blood samples (is he doing research on health, or tests on a patient? should it matter?), life expectancy graph, treatment-adjusted life-expectancy graph). In any case, I welcome your (and other's) further thoughts on this matter. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Need more time, will look in it later. --Foroa (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I did spend a couple of hours in those categories and did not found major inconsistencies, while it confirmed my feeling that in the long run, those categories should be kept apart. In most major topic trees, we have a split between concepts and implementation/execution, that tends to be contested in the beginning: art/artists, painting/painters/paintings, sculpturing/sculptors/sculptues, literature/writers/books ... I would worry more about the Medicine category that is much more inconsistent per country and could need a better definition. --Foroa (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks - but I've struggled with this though - how would you split things? In the cats I've looked at, there isn't any consistency, and I can't imagine what guidance one might give to editors to determine whether a given image is about healthcare or health.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the best way forward is to agree about a reference category tree in a particular country such as Germany. Making a conceptual list seems difficult as there are very often categories created. Concerning the guidance of a particular image, I think that neither Health of Healthcare should contain images in the long run, so images should go into deeper categories that are less conceptual and much more obvious. --Foroa (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Need more time, will look in it later. --Foroa (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Foroa. I can see your POV, but I have considered this issue deeply, including through the process of cleaning up this mess in the en.wikipedia, and I am convinced that there is no value to be gained by trying to define such a separation - for categorization purposes - between health and healthcare. You say "healthcare is the main cat in the sense that it concerns organising and doing things related to the health of people" - in this case, what then remains for "health"? For example, is exercise "health" or "healthcare"? In some cases, exercise is prescribed by a doctor, so is a form of care or treatment for an ailment; in other cases, it is used for maintenance of good health, thus not technically healthcare... Let me give you another example:
- When looking in those cats that are really populated (Germany, France, ...), there is indeed a serious mixup, but they deserve to remain split-up. Experience shows that merges for simplification are very often undone later as they become too crowded. A proper split seems not so difficult, documentation might seem more complicated, although to me, healthcare is the main cat in the sense that it concerns organising and doing things related to the health of people, and will be quickest populated in the short term. I think that with a minimum of documentation and making sure that all the root and by country categories are properly organised, the correct structures will propagate in an organic way to the deeper categories. --Foroa (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Wow a year and a half later and this is still an open topic? I am here because of Mozambique, and it would be much better to just simplify as a "Health" category. Everyone has health, and not everyone healthcare, which is a subset of health. I am working on AIDS, which is not really healthcare, but instead is health. Ditto for ebola. Delphi234 (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Support I understand the point that Foroa makes, but do not see the similarity between Health/Healthcare and the other category groups he refers to. There is, for example, a clear distinction between the act of painting, a person who is a painter, and a painting that has been produced by a painter whilst painting. Whilst most images will clearly belong to one of those categories, very few will belong to all three. That is not the case with Health/Healthcare where, as Obi-Wan Kenobi states, it is very difficult to envisage any clear guidance that would separate the categories. All the present distinction is doing is complicating matters for both those categorising images and those looking for images to use. We should be seeking to make matters simple and easy to use, not making them incomprehensible. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose After some reconsiderations, I'm now against deleting and upmerging the categories. While at first sight the proposal seemed to make some sense, it soon became clear that Category:Health care is also a child of Category:Public services, so at least the contents would have to be merged there, too. That however would be quite a regression rather than an improvement. If your aim is a clearer distinction between the parent and its child category then I'd rather propose renaming the child categories to Category:Public health care and Category:Public health care in .... --PanchoS (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment Much of this relates to how the terms are used. Healthcare relates to healing actual people, as it's a public service (more or less); while medicine relates to anything that is not directly about providing healthcare to humans, and could just as well be about actual research, actual medicine (drugs), and so on. In some regions of the world (Eastern Europe, Post-Soviet countries and Russia), medicine actually means and stands for healthcare as a public service. -Mardus /talk 18:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
No consensus to merge. I'm going to be bold and close this after more than five years of discussion and no new input in the last two years. The discussion has not resulted in any clear consensus to merge. The lack of responses in Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2012/05#Category:Healthcare in Afghanistan is not indicative of any consensus; category discussions generally have little or no participation. English Wikipedia once again has a en:Category:Healthcare by country, so following their example is no longer a valid argument for merging. The fact that subjects related to the more specific topic (healthcare in this case) are frequently miscategorised or overcategorised into parent categories (generic health categories) does not in itself indicate that merging is called for; it's seen in every branch of the category tree. Keeping the problem tags at the top of every healthcare related category at this point only discourages working on the categories to impose better structure, and as Foroa stated, with more concrete deeper categories, conceptual differences in higher categories tend to become less of an issue, as hardly any images should ever be directly categorised as related to health or healthcare. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
IMO should all files in this category get migrated to Category:Coats of arms of the Bundeswehr (to its sub categories) with the real (in this case german) names of the units, to avoid double categoriesation and keep all files at one directory. Flor!an (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Das köönen wir glaub ich auf Deutsch machen. Ich bin auch deiner Meinung, weil ich's verwirrend finde, dass es hier parallele Kategoriensysteme gibt und die Praxis zeigt, dass die Ordnung anhand der Namen der Truppenteile ziemlich gut funktioniert, allerdings kann ich mal für Steinbeisser sprechen - er wird sich sicher aber auch selbst äußern: Er benutzt diese Kategorie, um nur qualitativ befriedigende Photos echter Brustanhänger zu sortieren. Er registriert hier weder gezeichnete IVA noch Ärmelabzeichen. Soviel zum Hintergrund. Mehr sage ich dazu aber nicht, weil ich das schon (zu) häufig mit Steinbeisser diskutiert habe. Bisher hat er sich durch mich nicht von dieser Kat. abbringen lassen.--TUBS
16:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Grundsätzlich habe ich nicht gegen die Kategorie, ich finde es sogar gut eine eigene für Brustabhänger-Fotos zu haben, aber ich finde es schwierig, wenn man für eine Einheit ein Wappen sucht in zwei verschiedenen Kategorien suchen muss. Man könnte sich zwar darauf einigen, dass neue Dateien immer in beide eingetragen werden, doch glaub ich das das sehr sehr schwierig ist durchzusetzen. Besonders wenn jemand eine neue Datei hochläd der mit dem System nicht so vertraut ist. Zudem ist es schwierig durch die "krampfhaften" Übersetzungen (die durchaus korrekt sind) die richtigen Verbände zu finden.--Flor!an (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Mein Reden. Manchmal setz ich den AutoWikiBrowser drauf an und kopiere die Dateien in "mein" Kategoriensystem rüber, damit dort zumindest alle (unabhängig von Qualität, Zeichnung oder Photo, Textil oder Brustanhänger) zu finden sind. Das ist aber auch recht aufwendig.--TUBS 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Mein Reden. Manchmal setz ich den AutoWikiBrowser drauf an und kopiere die Dateien in "mein" Kategoriensystem rüber, damit dort zumindest alle (unabhängig von Qualität, Zeichnung oder Photo, Textil oder Brustanhänger) zu finden sind. Das ist aber auch recht aufwendig.--TUBS
- Grundsätzlich habe ich nicht gegen die Kategorie, ich finde es sogar gut eine eigene für Brustabhänger-Fotos zu haben, aber ich finde es schwierig, wenn man für eine Einheit ein Wappen sucht in zwei verschiedenen Kategorien suchen muss. Man könnte sich zwar darauf einigen, dass neue Dateien immer in beide eingetragen werden, doch glaub ich das das sehr sehr schwierig ist durchzusetzen. Besonders wenn jemand eine neue Datei hochläd der mit dem System nicht so vertraut ist. Zudem ist es schwierig durch die "krampfhaften" Übersetzungen (die durchaus korrekt sind) die richtigen Verbände zu finden.--Flor!an (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Tubs spricht die Qualität an und das ist der Knackpunkt. Es gibt hier Abzeichen, die sind vier oder fünfmal nebeneinander in GIF, In JPG und in PNG vertreten, wobei manche von so schlechter Qualität sind, daß man sich schon fast schämt. Versuche den Mist zu löschen, scheitern an allmächtigen admins, die einfach behaupten, das sei kein Löschgrund und den Löschantrag eliminieren. Des weiteren gibt es zwischen “badges” also den Brusttaschenanhängern und “coat of arms” unter Umständen schon einen Unterschied - ein Wappen nämlich kann auch das auf eine Blechtafel gemalte und fotografierte Erzeugnis neben dem Eingang zum Bataillonsgebäude sein, oder aber der Wappenteller über dem Tresen in der UHG! -- Steinbeisser (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ich verstehe deine Idee, doch ob dieses alle verstehen ist fragwürdig ... es gibt ja keinen "Schutz", das genau hier (also Badges/gute Quali) keine "falschen/schlechten" reinkommen. Ich hätte nur gerne, dass unter "coat of arms" wirklich alle (alle Einheiten) liegen und meinentwegen wenige, von hand ausgewählte, gerne auch hier. Doch nur wie umgeht man es, dass hier welche reingelegt werden können die nicht unter "coat of arms" liegen? Vielleicht diese hier "verstecken"? ... --Flor!an (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Die meisten sind eh bei Tubs bereits untergebracht, da macht man dann halt zwei Kategorien bei jedes file. Und was reinkommen von falschen/schlechten bertifft: Da schaun mer dann amal -- Steinbeisser (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm naja geht so ich hab gestern mal ein paar (gefühlt tausende) zu der "coat of arms" fraktion hinzugefügt siehe: [4] (bisschen runterscrollen) und ich denk mal das es bei weitem nicht alle waren... --Flor!an (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wenn Du mal genau hinschaust, wirst Du merken, da´die meisten jetzt da doppelt vorhanden sind. Lediglich der Hintergrund unterscheidet sich (grau bzw. schwarz) that's all -- Steinbeisser (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
@Steinbeisser, Flor!an, and TUBS: Hallo, diese Kategorie ist (jetzt bzw. momentan) leer, könnte also als empty gelöscht werden. Doch was ist mit den enthaltenen Unterkategorien? Sollen/können diese ebenfalls verschoben werden? Viele Grüße, --Emha (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we kindly ask to avoid writing in German please? This is not a private conversation and the lingua franca used on here is English. I too would like to hold a debata in Italian but alas, I'm pretty sure that very few would be able to follow what I say. Have you reached a point, since it's 8 years that that category is a mess and it's more than 5 years that this discussion is on? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- IMHO this category should be merged with Coats of arms of the Bundeswehr which is the standard on Commons. The idea of this category isn't bad, just not how we do things here. In order to only present high quality files galleries should be used. Steinbeisser: duplicates will be deleted when tagged properly. Unless its SVG vs. Bitmap, then both are kept. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I am willing to close this if the discussion doesn't gain track again. @Centenier: for reference. De728631 (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of this discussion was: Merge content of the category into Category:Coats of arms of the Bundeswehr and its subcategories. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Computer hardware by manufacturer? --Flominator (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nearly, there are 3 types of category to get confused here:
- Manufacturers
- Brands
- Computer hardware
- 1 and 2 are distinct, e.g. Vaio doesn't make laptops, but the problem is that Commodore International did make computers branded "Commodore". This has confused the issue enough for the category of the manufacturer Category:Commodore International to end up in Category:Computer hardware by manufacturer, when it is actually Category:Commodore computers which should be there.
- Same but slightly worse: Category:Acorn Computers is actually the name of the manufacturer of the brand Acorn. Category:Acorn computers (or Category:Acorn Computers computers :) is what actually belongs in a category with Category:Acer computers, Category:Hewlett-Packard computers, etc. Of course no-one has made this category to describe Acorn computer hardware, because it has an unavoidably silly name. Unless you think Category:Acorn Computers hardware is ok instead. It just needs some cleaning up I think --moogsi (blah) 11:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think if this category was renamed to "Computers by brand", then it would be clear that it refered to the brand of the assembled computer. "Computer hardware by manufacturer" could perhaps be renamed to "Computer hardware by brand", or perhaps "Computer components by brand" would be bettter. The true manufacturer may be invisible in an image and hard to identify anyway. There's also "Computer hardware manufacturers" which contains companies as subcategories and looks fine, and should take anything from "Computer hardware by manufacturer" that's just a company name. I think a category "Acorn computers" would be OK, although it's a bit hard to distinguish from "Acorn Computers". --ghouston (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are some few famous brands like Tandy including TRS-80 (Tandy Radio Shack) computers which is a combination of brand, manufacturer and computer model. I recently had problems finding some computers hovering the categories, like Sinclair computers not included in the hardware by manufacturer cat. Hard to find a decision. Maybe completetly delete the brands? Or at least mentioning them on the other category or better make duplicate categories? Btw: Screenshots are often subcategories of the computers (so subcategory of hardware). The problem is also that some manufacturers not only make computers and some pictures showing computers and other stuff at the same time. --Kungfuman (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- TRS-80 is just a brand. Various models were made, some of them completely incompatible. It's not a manufacturer or a single model. At the moment we have Tandy (brand) in this category, even though it includes other stuff besides computers. "TRS-80" as a brand could go in. Category:TRS-80 computers on the other hand would be able to go in "Computers by brand". Included in "TRS-80 computers" are the pocket computers manufactured by Sharp and Casio, so it strictly wouldn't belong in "Computers by manufacturer" (also because TRS-80 isn't the manufacturer.) --ghouston (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
ThinkPad is also purely a brand. ThinkPads were manufactured by IBM and later Lenovo. The conclusion has to be that Category:Computer brands isn't a duplicate of Category:Computer hardware by manufacturer, at any rate. Also, Computer hardware by manufacturer shouldn't be a subcategory of Computer brands, since the relationship isn't simple. It can be mentioned in a "see also". Category:Computers by brand also now exists and can take the categories that are named like "XXX computers", and it's also not a duplicate of "Computer Brands". --ghouston (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Which leaves the question of whether every "XXX computers" category in Category:Computer hardware by manufacturer should be moved to Category:Computers by brand, or whether they should be put into both categories unless the name is definately only a brand and not a manufacturer. --ghouston (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- If the XXX in "XXX computers" is a brand, put it under Category:Computers by brand, if it is a manufacturer, put it under Category:Computer hardware by manufacturer, and if it is both, then put it under both. Josh (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- The silly naming of a proposed "Acorn Computers computers" category could perhaps be improved by naming it "Acorn Computers Ltd. computers". --ghouston (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Closing with no action, since the discussion isn't active and there wasn't support for the idea that Category:Computer brands and Category:Computer hardware by manufacturer are duplicates. --ghouston (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)