Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08

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

Category:Nice

[edit]

This category attracts files that people think are nice. Can we rename it, maybe to Category:Nice, Alpes-Maritimes? Some subcats might also need renaming, I haven't checked. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's another Nice in France, I would think Category:Nice, France would be most appropriate. A disambiguation page at Category:Nice would make sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be consistent with w:Talk:Nancy#Requested move as GeoNames doesn't show any others in France and Nice is larger than Nancy. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions on en.wp don't matter here. --Jotzet (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the argument, which essentially consists only of an unproven assertion, I oppose a change of name. Ten minutes ago I found just one file that was actually unintentionally categorized according to the adjective. So I think commons can deal "the feared risk" another 12 years. --Jotzet (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have mentioned the others I removed before creating this request. (Sorry, I didn't count them.) In any case, why is even one acceptable when we have a way to help prevent miscategorization? The fact that the primary meaning of the word is the adjective is reason enough to qualify. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion needs to be shown that this meaning is, rather than isn't primary, the burden lies with those wanting a primary topic. The fact that it took less than 2 weeks for another incorrect file is good evidence that this title is too ambiguous. We disambiguated Category:Mississippi partly because French users might well confuse the river and state (as the French don't include "river" or similar in the names of rivers) and the same should be done here, to prevent English users from confusing it with the adjective. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral but weak oppose: if not even the English Wikipedia (where "nice" is understood to be the adjective) felt the need (or the urge) to disambiguate, figure out here on Commons where a relevant part of members hasn't English as first language. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would usually take the view than if ENWP hasn't disambiguated a word that is primarily ambiguous in English, there is less problem in other languages. However that's mainly because its difficult to write an article on the concept of nice but its a word that can easily be assigned accidentally in categories. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose. Change the adjective nice instead. --Totorvdr59 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't address the problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Totorvdr59: could you please clarify what you mean by "Change the adjective nice instead"? I think the point is that because the adjective exists there's ambiguity with the name "Nice". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. It does not matter to me whether the category is called "Nice, France" or "Nice, Alpes-Maritimes" as long as it saves us work. The problem is that there are indiscriminate uploaders who do not care that a word may have several meanings, and "nice" as an adjective might turn up among image tags just as well as "Nice" as the name of the city. I've also moved some files into other categories in the last few days, some were even photos of India! It is already bad enough that some people play with words in the image titles and use the adjective as a pun on the city name. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed some more files from this category in the meantime. Some people don't seem to understand that categories aren't tags. Anyway, just thought of one more point in support of the renaming: there are some other places called Nice in the world, although they are much smaller. We don't usually give the best-known place an attribute in such cases, but it may be justified in this case. However, if a redirect is set, we might end up with the same problem as before. --Schlosser67 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support category:Nice to disambiguation--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a general consensus to rename. Does anyone have a preference for the new category name? Category:Nice, France or Category:Nice (city) make the most sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nice (Alpes-Maritimes) would be consistent with other places in Category:Communes in Alpes-Maritimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though there are a couple other disambiguated with France there. Personally, it sounds funny to me since Nice is a fairly prominent city, not usually defined by its department, unlike American cities. It would sound equally strange to me to move Rome to Category:Rome, Lazio or Oslo to Category:Oslo, Østlandet. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I also personally prefer Category:Nice (city), but I have to concede that I looked through several categories of city cats and cities are almost universally DABed with comma state/region name, i.e. Category:Nice, Alpes-Maritimes, so I think we should continue to match that. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: Fine by me, if that what it takes to move forward after 3 years of discussion. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After considering, I strikethroughed my "strong support". It is quite hard to ignore user:Blackcat's opinion which in briefly says " Neutral but weak oppose". In addition, categories like Category:Nice in the 17th century remains clear if who choose status quo (vs possible Nice (city) in the 17th century)--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to rename Nice, it should be "Nice, France". There aren't two cities of France called Nice, thus no need to disambiguate beyond its country name. -- Blackcat 21:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best idea. I wonder why nothing has happened in over a year. Schlosser67 (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose. The English term "nice" is extremely subjective and it is that term that should be qualified like "Nice (aspect)"; as well even as an adjective, it means very different things: beautiful, smart/intelligent, friendly... all of them subjective. And categories like "nice people" (beautful or smart?) is a complete non-sense, breaking NPOV, as well as "nice car", "nice painting". Those perceptive aspects are unassertable, the perception varying a lot depending on cultures of visitors. Only the topic for the city of "Nice" is very objective and by itself not ambiguous at all (at least not in France); there may exist smaller towns or villages needing a disambiguation, but "Nice" is the wellknown capital of the French Riviera, and appears in lot of medias, papers, and historical topics since centuries (including when it was still not part of France) and in many languages (including English!). But if you ever want a dismabiguation, French cities are qualified between parentheses (it may be France, otherwise the name of a department if there were several communes named "Nice" in France, but this is not the case), so it should better be "Nice (France)" and not "Nice, France". verdy_p (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Verdy p: : Category:Brest, France and Category:Nancy, France contradict your argument about parenthesis. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are few exceptions made by those contributors of English Wikipedia; almost all communes in France are disambiguated with the department between parentheses (just like French Wikipedia), because they use the French convention and the official toponyms are in French, according to Commons own policy, because this is the only offciial language (toponyms are written in English only when there are several languages or scripts in competition and supported locally). verdy_p (talk)
Straw poll

@Mercurywoodrose, Auntof6, Crouch, Swale, Jotzet, Blackcat, Schlosser67, BMacZero, and Estopedist1: I think there is general consensus that leaving the category at Category:Nice is going to continue causing problems. The question remains about where to move it. Just to see where everyone is at without having to read through all of the above, can we do this straw poll? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll
Category:Nice (France) Category:Nice, France Category:Nice (city) Category:Nice (Alpes-Maritimes)
or Category:Nice, Alpes-Maritimes
Example  Support -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Support because it's the most obvious to people not familiar with France, but let's have redirects from the others. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Support This is the clearest name to me even though regions are more commonly used. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Though "Nice (France)" may be preferred either if fine. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I prefer Nice (France) bur I choose Nice, France because it's the traditional way on englishspeaking Wikipedia --Berdea (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] 		Example

 Support Because, are you sure that in all France there is no other town with the name "Nice"? better limit.--Isidre blanc (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I am not a fan of disambiguations if not strictly necessary. I do reckon a weak need for disambiguating this category anyway. In case of disambiguation, I am favourable to Nice, France. Anyway we should have a debate about a common criterium of disambiguation style by administrative unit. We can't go on having French communes disambiguated by brackets and UK and American ones by comma. -- Blackcat 18:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Is anyone from France giving an opinion here? I categorize many photographs of France, and French editors always promptly sort them into smaller categories. I am impressed by their work. Krok6kola (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sunny (vocalist) by hair color

[edit]

Good example of overcategorisation, 5 cats containing 6 images. Suggest deletion. Achim (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Categorize by hair colour, fine. Categorize by person, fine. No need to connect the two. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree... Update: 4 cats containing 45 files. For me this cats are fine for now. BTW: The fan project Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton is imho a real annoying example of overcategorization. --Jotzet (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We probably have well over a thousand photos of Category:Vladimir Putin - should we also categorize those images by the colour of his tie when the photo was made? I agree that some of the categories for Hillary Clinton are similarly unnecessary, but A) that doesn't make this okay (nominate hers if you want), and B) even she isn't subcategorized by colour (of clothes or whatever), despite having way way more photos on Commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least with Sunny and Kim Jong-hyun, there are several sub-categories for each hair colour. Those other categories are worse with just two sub-cats each. Why is 109 photos divided by year insufficient? Most pop stars go through an array of shirt colours throughout their careers, but we don't categorize them according to shirt colour. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion.  Delete the nominated category and the followsings. Currently, in Commons database we have these concrete persons' categories with <by hair color>:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barangays of Caloocan

[edit]

background of barangay 14 zone 2 district II caloocan city 112.201.59.213 13:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Barangay 14, District 2, Dagat-Dagatan, Caloocan City Map of Barangay 14 South Caloocan is located along and specifically part of Category:C-3 Road, Dagat-Dagatan Avenue, Dagatdagatan Extension & C-4 Road; I did not stop at all while taking photos from a jeep or tricycle to capture Barangay 14; What I do is to take photos of Welcome or road signs indicating the Barangays like Barangay 14, since many of the Barangays are interlocking or adjacent one another; sincerely Judgefloro 08:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please view these pictures Category:Barangays 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14, Zone 2, Dagat-Dagatan District, Caloocan City South and Category:Barangays 4 and 8, Sangandaan, Zone 1, District II, Caloocan City - Notice that Barangays 8, 12 and 14 are included in the so-called Dagat-Dagatan District Judgefloro 09:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Keep no valid reason to delete or to act whatsoever. @Judgefloro: , the categories for discussion is for technical or complex discussions like deletion and requested renaming. The category is fine. If you have concerns on subcategories, please raise them at Commons:Village pump. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autogas tanks

[edit]

Is a rename needed here, as the claimed scope "Autogas" is narrower than the evident scope of what's in here, LPG tanks in general. Autogas is a specific term - most of what's here isn't Autogas, it's just LPG tankage. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, the two categories were duplicates and the duplication caused chaos and inconsistencies in their subcategories. "Autogas is the common name for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) when it is used as a fuel in internal combustion engines in vehicles as well as in stationary applications such as generators." I.E. "autogas" and LPG are two names of the same thing, but in various contexts, or various countries, various names ar preferred. Anyway, categories of cylinders and tanks with the gas should have its own constistent structure, not to be randomly dispersed to two places. --ŠJů (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the edits like [2] [3] by ŠJů, which emptied this valid category and upmerged it, without discussion. It should be restored – we still have a need for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley and Auntof6: The fact that any discussion is ongoing is not a valid reason to keep chaos and duplication in categorization, to resign to order files and to stop all works. Toward my material argument that "autogas" and "LPG" are two names of the same thing, you proposed no usable vision how to involve both terms reasonably to the categorization structure, avoiding duplication and chaos and keeping universality principle. en:Wikipedia contains two articles but the Liquefied petroleum gas contains photos of LPG minibus, LPG taxicab, LPG filling connector on a car and a symbol used on LPG-powered vehicles in China – i.e. the article duplicates the en:Autogas article on this focus and pervades its item. What should be your criterium to sort LPG tanks to autogas-tanks and not-autogas LPG tanks? Just the local convention of labeling? In most part of the world, "LPG" is generally and internationally used for LPG as a fuel in internal combustion engines in vehicles. "Autogas" is probably just a locally used name of the same thing for the same usage. If we keep both categorization branches, they will really duplicates because most of users around the world will use LPG categories for autogas, called "LPG" in most of countries. --ŠJů (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taiwan
    Taiwan
  • Sweden
    Sweden
  • Poland
    Poland
  • Germany
    Germany
  • China
    China
  • Czechia
    Czechia
  • Autogas is a subset of LPG. Chemically, they're the same thing. But we're not talking about LPG, we're talking about the tanks in which it is stored and from which it is used. These are quite distinct, and that (very obvious) distinction is one which Commons should be reflected. Why merge everything into just one? That's a mess.
I favour the name 'Autogas' because it works as a name for this group, not that the word has any magic of its own. But it's widely used, meets COMMONNAME, is fairly self-explanatory and it avoids another of those awful Commons neologisms where a giant Germanic compound noun is invented just for the sake of impenetrable obscurity. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion @Andy Dingley@Auntof6@ŠJů are there almost consensus that Category:Autogas tanks and Category:Liquefied petroleum gas tanks should be not merged--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikidata SPARQL data visualisations

[edit]

I propose a rename from Wikidata SPARQL data visualisations to Wikidata Query Service visualizations Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding page at Wikidata is d:Wikidata:SPARQL query service. This is incorrectly named and technically difficult to change, but the correct name for this is the "Wikidata Query Service". There are many names for this in circulation which is a source of confusion.
On 7 August 2018 @Waldir: created new categories after this naming structure. Those categories are useful but they use the name "Wikidata SPARQL data visualisations", which is partially correct but not the best name. There are lots of ways to visualize Wikidata following a SPAQRL query including by using any of the d:Wikidata:Wikidata front ends. This category is full of the particular visualizations only from the default and native Wikidata Query Service.
I propose renaming this category and all the child categories to use the correct name. See also d:Wikidata talk:SPARQL query service#SPARQL query service versus Wikidata Query where I raised the issue of the incorrect name. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of this change. I think having SPARQL in the name also creates confusion with Category:SPARQL, from which I moved a bunch of images to the visualization subcategories I had created. --Waldir talk 20:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Bluerasberry and Waldir: please could you write appropriate category names after the category name. Currently Commons database has these categories:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the least surprising name would be "Category:Wikidata Query Service visualization - xyz". I posted this above. Here are some points to discuss:
  • having a hyphen in a category is unusual
  • s versus z, British versus American
  • I think after years of use there are lots of sources using the term "Wikidata Query Service" and especially "WDQS" but the name is still not officially marked on the tool because it is so hard to rename
  • The service is currently outputting visualizations but it can also output other results. Right now it also outputs data files, and I expect some day or in some some ways it could output audio files (sonifications), video files, or other formats which are not called data visualizations. In that case the name could be "Wikidata Query Service output - xyz".
  • It would be useful to have category redirects for "WDQS visualization - xyz" once we confirm a name.
Thoughts from others? Probably others at Wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat would want to comment here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rank insignia of the GDR Ministry of State Security

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Flags of the GDR Ministerium für Staatssicherheit.

These are ranks of the DDR Army and not of the Stasi. Sanandros (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • So I've no clue why you started this disc. Just categorize those files properly. If rank insignia of the GDR Ministry of State Securit are identical to those of the GDR Army they should be in both cats. --Jotzet (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are they realy identical?--Sanandros (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Specific discussion. Could you clarify situation user:Jotzet? Maybe a hint: Category:Decorations, badges, and insignia of the NPA--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harlequin

[edit]

DAB to Category:Harlequin (character), there are too many other uses and in different languages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed, don't understand what the problem is. It looks like you want to create a new Category:Harlequin (character), but you haven't provided any examples of what other uses you mean, just a vague generalization. This is the main topic in the English Wikipedia, so apparently there is no need for the qualifier "character" in parentheses. Since English is the default at Commons, other language variants aren't really an issue. Robert.Allen (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The need for a qualifier is different here than in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, most activity is reading articles: if you go to en:Harlequin when that article isn't the topic you want, you will quickly realize it when you start reading, and the hatnote directs you to the dab page to find other meanings.
On Commons, much more activity is categorizing images. Categorizing is done by knowledgeable people, by people who don't understand the category system as well, and also by bots. It can also be done without ever looking at the categories used, especially when done by bots. Often categories are assigned solely based on keywords. If files get assigned to the wrong category, it can be very hard to realize that and get it fixed. Also, if you're looking at files in a category whose name isn't qualified and which has miscategorized things in it, it can be impossible to tell from the file that something is wrong.
And since you raised the issue, here are other meanings of Harlequin:
I've left out the ones that are obvious subcats of any of these. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And more at w:Harlequin (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these present a disambiguation problem that I can see. They all have different names. Are you proposing to rename some of these with names like Category:Harlequin (dog) or Category:Harlequin (rabbit)? I don't see anything in Help addressing the use of qualifiers in parentheses, but you seem more knowledgeable about these issues than me, and I don't feel strongly about it, so I wouldn't try to change it back, if you go ahead and do it. Robert.Allen (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't change any of the listed ones, because there is enough description in their names to distinguish them. I would change the name of the one being discussed here, because it could easily be confused with some of the ones I listed. We should probably include Category:Harley Quinn as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How much longer?? Three years of discussionn! I propose that this issue be finally put to an end here! The categogy is, in my view, "meaningful"!--Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it can still be moved with a DAB created, that doesn't mean that the category isn't meaningful just that it will be disambiguated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Snow tire tracks

[edit]

What's the difference between this and Category:Tire marks on snow? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. None that I can see. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is a slight difference as "Tire marks on snow" can be from summer, all seasons or snow tires while "Snow tire tracks" is only for the latter. So technically "Snow tire tracks" should be a sub-category of "Tire marks on snow". However, I am not sure that it is necessary and a merge seems equally appropriate to me. Pierre cb (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pierre cb: In that case it should be renamed to "Tire marks from snow tires". Though I doubt such a category is really that useful. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Auntof6: should be consensual merge. You are free to merge which way you want--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1, Alexis Jazz, and Pierre cb: Unless someone can confirm that the tracks in Category:Snow tire tracks are all from snow tires, I would redirect Category:Snow tire tracks to Category:Tire marks on snow. Any comments or objections? -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with the GRU

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/03/Category:People associated with association football.

I think this category is too broad, as the verb "associated" can mean anything. Sanandros (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Already exist on WikimediaCommons:

Category:People associated with organizations
Category:People associated with the KGB
Category:People associated with the NKVD
Category:People associated with the Cheka
Category:People associated with the SVR of Russia

Or: Staff of GRU intelligence agency?
--Mayyskiyysergeyy (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central Intelligence Agency has Category:Central Intelligence Agency people. Can we use Category:KGB people, Category:NKVD people, Category:Cheka people, Category:SVR of Russia people (or Category:Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation people, and Category:Main Intelligence Directorate people ? "Associated" might include informants or even victims, but I don't think anyone would describe those two categories as "KGB people" - Themightyquill (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With Cat:XXX people I'd be happy.--Sanandros (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest leaving these old cats alone. Instead subcategories should be created as needed (like Category:Members of the KGB, Category:Victims of the KGB or Category:Executives of the KGB). --Jotzet (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the victims category if it contains more cats, as you can't associate certain pictures of victims to the cat. If only gallery pages are allowed it would be ok, beside that we on de wp don't categorise victims (of MfS for example) in a intelligence cat.--Sanandros (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "associated with" certainly has its place on commons, but we don't put people who've ridden in a truck or been run over by a truck in Category:People associated with trucks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Incomplete digital photographs

[edit]
See also: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2018/08#Increased_occurence_of_incomplete_digital_photographs.
See also: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/01#Damaged_photos.

This category makes no sense. Such Incomplete digital photographs can always be traced back to faulty uploads, which are done several times a day and of which there are probably thousands (I alone have already fixed hundreds). These must either be replaced, cropped or deleted. Until then, they must be assigned to the maintenance category Category:Files with errors.

The phenomenon of the frequent occurrence of such incomplete files has been noticeable for months ([4]). Obviously the creator of this category was not aware of this, so he also started a new phab task which is redundant and therefore was forwarded. It should now be clear that it is counterproductive to operate a redundant category just to host such images "for evidence purposes".

Files are placed in and removed from Category:Files with errors by placing a template only. That's why Category:Incomplete digital photographs can't be converted into a forwarding but should be deleted. Jotzet (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As i can see, Category:Files with errors with the current parameters of {{Broken file}} sorts files only by file type, not by type of the error. Btw., the affected files shouldn't be rashly deleted unless the bug is explicated and fixed. 5 months of persistence of such fatal bug without whichever solution and warnings is alarming. If the bug is related with cross-wiki-uploads, why such uploads are not blocked? Why upload form gives no warning for uploads bigger than 5MB? Why none bot marks all 5MB files as suspected? Why the files are cropped or deleted without warning the uploaders? --ŠJů (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know that this is not the place where to discuss most of your questions. Feel free to sample such images in Category:User:ŠJů/Incomplete digital photographs. But there is no form of support in overcategorizing "by type of the error" cause all JPGs affected suffer from one and the same. Under no circumstances is it the task of this project to collect testimonies of lack of care during the upload. And a distribution of the "evidence" across the category system will hardly facilitate their necessary processing. Also they are not rare precious (new samples are produced daily) but files that have to be judged for their compatibility with Commons:Project scope (btw: I am not aware of any deletion without prior notification in this "problem area"). --Jotzet (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Jotzet and ŠJů: The nominated category is empty. But the category has a tag {{Tracked|T190988}}. How can we solve this category-for-discussion?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete There are other, more specific categories connected to T190988, and they're all in Category:Incomplete files (5 MB interruption). This one is redundant, empty, and the bug as been marked as resolved. I see not reason to keep this around. El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC) {[cfdf}}[reply]

Category:Buenos Aires Metro

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/03/Category:Medalla Milagrosa (Subterráneo Buenos Aires).

The whole tree of this mother category is heavily inconsistent. Whereas the English article reads "Buenos Aires Underground" and here "Buenos Aieres Metro", whereas the disambiguation for its stations is "Subte de Buenos Aires" or "Subterráneo Buenos Aires". First we must agree to a suitable name of the mothercat and subsequently we should name the childcats in consistent way. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that some kind of consistency is essential, and point to Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/03/Category:Medalla Milagrosa (Subterráneo Buenos Aires). Not sure why that discussion was closed without resolving the problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, @Themightyquill: , also because I alas don't speak the language of Beethoven and Schiller and thus haven't understood a single word of the closure motivation. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I moved files to Category:Medalla Milagrosa (Subterráneo Buenos Aires) and deleted Category:Medalla Milagrosa (Subte de Buenos Aires) so that we wouldn't have the duplication, and it seems User:Hystrix took that to mean that the situation had been resolved, ignoring the broader inconsistencies in that category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I made a mistake, correct it. Further hints please here, with ping, or on my discussion page. Regards, Hystrix (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I think the first point to consider should be who will be browsing these categories. Because most of the time these can be people from all over the world, I suggest we use the most widely understood expression for underground trains instead of Subte or Subterraneo. If you look at the names for other non-English speaking cities, you will see that Metro is most commonly used. Even for Vienna they have Metro instead of U-bahn. I would thus strongly argue in favor of normalizing all names to Metro. It's a lot of work, but it would bring consistency not only among the Buenos Aires entries, but with the majority of Metros around the world. MarianoC (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chapelle Saint-François du couvent des Capucins de Céret

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Chapelle Notre Dame des Anges du couvent des Capucins de Céret.

Cette chapelle a été consacrée et dédiée à Notre Dame des Anges pour la dernière fois en 1871. Ses consécrations antérieures ne mentionnent pas Saint-François comme patron. Aucune source Française n'en fait allusion, sauf preuve du contraire à démontrer par une référence reconnue comme fiable et vérifiable. Zaloudock (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the category based on https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sant_Francesc_del_Convent_de_Caputxins_de_Ceret
It is not a problem for me if this category is renamed to anything else. Peter17 (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Currently, the nominated category is redirected to Category:Chapelle Notre Dame des Anges du couvent des Capucins de Céret. Are we satisfied here, user:Zaloudock, user:Peter17--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Estonia under Soviet occupation

[edit]

This category has a heavy POV and it's heavily problematic since Estonia was one of the Soviet republics, not an occupied State during 1944-1991. No evidence it was more "occupied" than Russia, Uzbekistan, Belarus, etc. Wikimedia projects are not the place where to smuggle fringe theories. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

many historians (excluded some Russians one) say that Estonia was an occupied State (id est a Country) during 1944-1991 and existed as en:Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. But this category may be deleted because it is unique. Only similar name is category:Maps_of_the_history_of_the_Caucasus_under_Soviet_rule--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems redundant to Category:Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic at very least. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia was very much a country occupied by the Soviet Union, and the country and people of Estonia could not make their own decisions about how they wanted to live — until the restoration of independence in 1991. -Mardus /talk 05:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd created Category:Soviet occupation in Estonia, then later found out, a similar category already exists (this one). I've removed that category from other categories, as I'd added this category into those. But the different wording of these categories holds a different perspective for each.
Is there perhaps an issue with grammar and an indeterminate time period? I think "Estonia under the Soviet occupation" should be correct with regard to only wording. In addition, there were three occupations: the first during 1918–1919, then the one that began with the annexation in 1940, and the long one that began in 1944 after the German forces left. -Mardus /talk 06:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I suggest the following hierarchy which is based on enwiki en:Category:Occupation of the Baltic states:

If my proposal fits then same to be done with Category:Latvia under Soviet occupation and Category:Lithuania under Soviet occupation. In future if we have files also about 1918-1918 Soviet occupation in Estonia (see etwiki article), we should reconsider the fate of the redirect Category:Estonia under Soviet occupation--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, to other operator

[edit]
and Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, no longer in fleet

 Delete Categoris should be removed for same reason as current/former fleet categories. They require active maintenance that cannot be reasonably implemented across the world's airlines. It is unclear what the purpose of a cat like this would be even if it could be maintained. Commons is a repository for media. Categories should reflect the media they contain. See Category:Retired aircraft for more on this. These categories show either aircraft that are currently in Lufthansa service (in which case they depict the opposite of the stated category title) or are in another airlines colors with no relevance to Lufthansa, but for the trivia that they may have served Lufthansa at some time in the past. This is information for which Wikipedia and Wikidata are well suited to maintaining, but maintaining time-relative data is not a proper function for the category scheme on Commons. Josh (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC) (additions Josh (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

 Keep
1) It should not be a problem to move Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, no longer in fleet back (!) into Category:Lufthansa Passage.
:: Side-comment by user:Joshbaumgartner: It is already in that category, which has its own issues, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.  Josh (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2) The Category:Aircraft of Lufthansa, to other operator is very well maintained. Wikipedia has ~ 50 million users in the German-speaking countries. According to independent polls, more than 70% are "interested in aviation". Thus, it can correctly be deducted that there is an interest in what happens to the planes of Europe's largest airline.
The same can certainly not be stated of Category:Letters on aircraft and Category:Numbers on aircraft, most of them having been created by just the person who complains about this category in discussion here. "Numbers on aircraft" has 2600 members; almost all of them hold 1 or 2 files only. Just how many Wikipedia users might be interested in Category:Number 12342 on aircraft? These are categories without the slightest chance of ever being completed and maintained properly. It is entirely unclear what the purpose of cats like that could be, possibly except for the creator by just creating a cat for every random number or letter that comes up.
So there are many thousands of almost empty cats with no apparent or proven interest to more than <5 people which could be put up for discussion rather than the one disputed here. --Uli Elch (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that other categories might be worse (that would be for another discussion to determine) is not a valid defense. These two categories do not belong and should be deleted. You might be right that the Lufthansa categories could be maintained by your personal effort for the time being. But your comment essentially admits that it could not be used across the airline category scheme, and that is a red flag. You are absolutely right that knowing the aircraft history of aircraft that served with Lufthansa is interesting and valuable, but that isn't the point. We have Wikidata and Wikipedia to maintain that data and narrative. That is where this kind of information should be maintained, not here in the Commons category scheme. Josh (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @Uli Elch: You'd be welcome to make a gallery page linking to these categories if you want. Former Lufthansa aircraft for instance. But it's not useful as a categorization tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I would suggest that the category 'Lufthansa Former Fleet' be used to replace 'Aircraft of Lufthansa, no longer in fleet', 'Aircraft of Lufthansa, to other operator' (which are hardly the most elegant of titles). The Current and Former fleet format is widely in use (although there is a discussion seeking to remove it). Some Lufthansa aircraft are already categorised in this way eg Category:Former Airbus aircraft of Lufthansa, but I haven't got round to processing the rest yet. Hope this suggested positive solution is helpful. The requiring active maintenance excuse is an old and poor one as there are many users, including myself, heavily involved in active maintenance and categorisation. Ardfern (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion (and others) reflect different philosophies on what Commons in relation to aviation is all about. There are those who see it just as a media repository (albeit categorised to within an inch of its life eg red aircraft, blue and white aircraft, aircraft facing left, aircraft with the letters EA, etc etc) and as just a big index site. Whereas there are many others (like myself) who see it as more than just a media repository, but one that also contains useful relevant information on the media contained. I have never heard of anyone accessing Commons looking for blue and white aircraft or aircraft facing right, but professionals and enthusiasts do access Commons looking for aircraft by type, registration, airline, current fleet, airport etc etc and find the information attached, eg aircraft history and current fleet, useful, meaning they come back. This argument is about the heart and soul of Commons aviation media and one that perhaps need much wider discussion. Ardfern (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, changing Commons from a media repository (it's founding and current purpose) into a replacement or duplication of Wikipedia and Wikidata would indeed require very broad consensus, and not just among the aviation community. This would change not only aviation media, but it would change the entire scope of Commons' role among the WMF projects. Josh (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the change I am suggesting at all. I want it to actually be useful, not just a massively over-categorised dumping ground. Ardfern (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but you are the one talking about changing the very philosophy of Commons. You can have relevant information on the media contained all you want. Make a gallery or even add a bit of text to the category if you want. Better yet, go put this info on Wikipedia or Wikidata, which is where most users looking to find data will go. Perverting the media repository scheme is not the best way to do it. Josh (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Clear majority to delete the two nominated categories. Besides, these categories' name parts (ie <to other operator> and <no longer in fleet>) are unique in Commons database.--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythological rapists

[edit]

Nonsense nad ridiculous. 2A00:F41:48CF:180B:66A:D5E3:6B16:2D8F 00:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want the opinion of your real nick, not your puppet.--Allforrous (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not my nomination, and I don't think the category is nonsense or ridiculous, but I wonder if categorizing mythological characters as rapists is really useful, unless that's the primary thing they are known for. We don't even have Category:Rapists. I think it would be more useful to create Category:Rape in mythology with categories/images that depict the rape. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 KeepThis category is of interest to the following WikiProjects: WikiProject Mythology, WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Gender Studies, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Crime, WikiProject Medicine.--Allforrous (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Rape in mythology" be clear enough, given that "rape" can mean "abduction" in those old stories, as in en:The Rape of the Sabine Women? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But images of Category:Rape in mythology wouldn't be of more interest to those wikipedia projects? I'm doubtful. There are an enormous amount of images in Category:Apollo‎ and its sub-categories, and most of them are of no interest at all to those wikiprojects. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Allforrous: Thoughts on a name change? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual predator, sex offender or delete. --Allforrous (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want to comment on why? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Seems to be a useful category. Abzeronow (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: Are you opposed to a move to Category:Rape in mythology ? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to such a move. Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Allforrous, Auntof6, and Abzeronow: the nominated category's name is in the line with Category:Mythological rape victims. But as user:Themightyquill implied, we even don't have category:Rapists. I guess that we should have Category:Rape in mythology, and related files (not categories of mythological characters) to be put into there-Estopedist1 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:Rape (abduction) in mythology and forget the victims and rapists categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Substring

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Computer science suffixes.

Overcategorization. We already have Category:String (computer science) and even that's a tenuous need. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that the usefulness of many of these categories appears to be questionable. In particular,

to be useful.

Apart from the noted exception, all these categories were created by Allforrous‎; most of them recently. I noted the contents statistics in parantheses after each category name; for the "unsure" and "useful" categories, I expect they can be inhabited by some manual keyword searches on commons.

@Allforrous: I know it can be tempting to create a new category for every notion that comes to one's mind. However, in order to keep the category tree to a reasonable depth, we have to be parsimonious with that. I think, a category should not be created if there aren't sufficiently many files present that go there. Long chains of almost empty subcategories don't help to navigate through the tree. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Jochen Burghardt and Andy Dingley: in the meantime, nominated categories have grown. All these five categories (nominated to be deleted) has equivalent article in enwiki (eg en:Generalized suffix tree). Still to be deleted or kept, other ideas?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the actual statistics for the above categories:
I still suggest to:
Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2018/08&oldid=907229301"