Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2009/03

< Commons:Categories for discussion | Archive | 2009

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Archive March 2009

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Images from the Online Photo Collection of the Romanian Communism

edit

I suggest renaming this category to "Images from the Romanian Communism Online Photo Collection" or similar. The grammar is atrocious. I would also like to extend a request to my fellow Romanian editors: if you know you can't really speak English, don't experiment with it in such hard-to-undo situations; ask, or, heck, write it in Romanian (English is the lingua franca here, but Romanian can function at least as a redirect). It's frankly getting embarrassing. Dahn (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get excited. This is no real problem. I prefer that users create and fill a collection of categories, potentially with bad names. Renaming is relatively easy and the precise name should be no show stopper. --Foroa (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with the category (I have helped in filling it myself). It's just that I've seen this happening many times, and I for one don't find this renaming procedure at all easy (in fact, having to fill one is among my pet peeves). Dahn (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just put {{Move|category:destination|Reason/motivation}} on it. All the rest will follow in due time. --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As this discussion is taking place, or instead? Dahn (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, the move template is for category renaming for which there should be no very long discussions and generate no major structural categorisation changes. CFD's (here) are for the more difficult/structural/controversial issues. Since it is now here, just propose improved naming, we agree and I execute. --Foroa (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. As per my first post, I think "Images from the Romanian Communism Online Photo Collection" should be uncontroversial. And thanks for the tips. Dahn (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Unidentified chemistry

edit

Redundant to Category:Media needing chemical classification. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to splinter the discussion. See Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Chemistry (unsorted) above. --Foroa (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate discussion
--Eusebius (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:February 12, 2008 Światowy Dzień Chorego

edit

Name should be in English (probably Category:World Day of the Sick February 12, 2008 or some such. If that was the only thing odd about this, I'd just ask for a rename as presumably uncontroversial. But I don't understand at all where this currently sits in the category tree. I'd expect it to be under something about days set aside by the Roman Catholic church for a particular focus. But it is not. Instead, it is under Category:Maria Kaczyńska. Why? Indeed, numerous categories that don't seem at all specific to Maria Kaczyńska (the Polish first lady) are under Category:Maria Kaczyńska (another example is Category:October 21, 2007 Polish parliamentary election). Someone care to sort out this mess? --Jmabel ! talk 05:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category changed to Category:World Day of the Sick, Warsaw, February 12, 2008 -- Ala z talk 06:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved
--Foroa (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Badges of rank

edit

The military rank insigia category is a mess now. There are several methods to categorize them

I suggest a renaming of Category:Badges of rank to Category:Military rank insignia and subcategories in the same schema. As a consequence Category:Military ranks will be mostly empty.

--Avron (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Category:Rank insignia makes also sense as a root category for military, police, firefighting, etc. rank insignias. At the moment Category:Badges of rank is used mostly for military rank insigia, so the suggested move. Afterwards there should be a big clean-up.--Avron (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I summarize properly:
Is that ok? --Eusebius (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.--Avron (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok to me,  Support. --Eusebius (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganised
--Foroa (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Badges of rank.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:SXSW 2006

edit

This category ought to be renamed to "South by Southwest 2006" to make it consistent with the others in Category:South by Southwest. --Chaser (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Boobs on bikes parade

edit

Duplicate of Category:Boobs on Bikes. --The Honorable (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Boobs on bikes parade" seems to be the better (more representative) name and makes no captalisation error. --Foroa (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merged in Category:Boobs on Bikes
--Foroa (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Mary Robinson (poet)

edit

It seems a bit odd to disambiguate the name when Category:Mary Robinson doesn't exist, and Category:Mary Darby Robinson (her full name) is a redirect to it. Maybe we should move it to one of those? --Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking that someone would inevitably one day create a category for Mary Robinson (President of Ireland), I took my cue from w:en:Mary Robinson (disambiguation), where there are three different Mary Robinsons. But if you think that another name for this category is better suited to Commons, please feel free to make the change. - Mu (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good initiative. When looking at en:Mary Robinson (disambiguation), one knows that the other Mary Robinsons will come one day. Disambiguation should be present for all names except the extremely famous or uncommon names. --Foroa (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan, then. (And hence why I chose categories for discussion.) I suppose, then, all we have to do is decide if Mary Darby Robinson would be a better way to disambiguate, and decide whether to pre-emptively create Category:Mary Robinson as a disambig for various people named Mary Robinson (even if there's only one member at the moment, it could make sense anyway, rather than having the base category unsorted). Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No changes
--Foroa (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Shock Image Placeholders

edit

Very bad idea. A much better way is to simply protect the titles with nothing uploaded or use the standard placeholder that doesn't feed the trolls. Look what happen with that HAGGER business when admins started playing regexp games with the blacklist. --Rocket000(talk) 07:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what this category is for, initially? As a consequence, I don't really understand your remarks. Would you care to explain a little bit? --Eusebius (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category, as far as I can tell, was created to hold images with titles that are commonly used when uploading shock images. Basically, it's an alternative blacklist. Instead of protecting a title (what we use to call "salting" before technology allowed us to protect non-existent pages), you upload a placeholder image and protect that (same as with the images in Category:Commons prohibited file names). My comparison to "that HAGGER business" was referring to the title blacklist on en.wp. Look at those regexps; it starts to get ridiculous trying protect against every variation. When you put a very visible arbitrary road block like this in a vandal's path, it merely encourages them to find a way around it. And if you stop them again, they find a new way. And around in circles it goes. I don't think that would happen here because we don't get a ton of vandalism like that, but still, there's no reason to copy bad habits from en.wp. Rocket000(talk) 01:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Category is unused. --GeorgHH • talk   10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Derviches and Category:Dervishes

edit

Is there any distinction between these categories? I suspect that Category:Derviches is just a French spelling, and the former category should be merged to Category:Dervishes. - Jmabel ! talk 05:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:DervichesCategory:Dervishes, seems like they are the same. --rimshottalk 19:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are merging, shouldn't it be to the English spelling? - Jmabel ! talk 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, of course. I mistyped. --rimshottalk 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Dervishes. --rimshottalk 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Chemistry (unsorted)

edit

Combined with the CDF's on Category:Media needing chemical classification and Category:Unidentified chemistry

edit

This is redirect does not make any sense. Unsorted is not unidentified. If unsorted categories are unwanted this one should be deleted. Otherwise the category should be reinstalled. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on User_talk:Cwbm_(commons)#Chemistry_.28unsorted.29, unsorted categories are unwanted. The Category:Chemistry (unsorted) redirect is installed to prevent recreation of that category over and over again. --Foroa (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the fourth time you are claiming that unsorted categories are unwanted without any prove that this is not your private opinion. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have an equally good explanation why you created a redundant category to Category:Media needing chemical classification. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Someone (not me) created "yet another to be classified" category. Time to harmonise now. --Foroa (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A category is a set. Sets are always unsorted. The kind of dump categories are unwanted. Delete the category or keep it as a redirect. Multichill (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline or earlier discussion that these kind of categories are unwanted. By adding a move request you circumvented the discussion to create facts. The whole procedure was not correct. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to name categories as "unsorted". Big general categories always contain files that are unsorted anyway, they are unsorted per definition, then users can move them into more specific categories. You may wish to read a bit more on how categories work on Commons in Commons:Categories. Patrícia msg 09:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look in Category:Unidentified subjects, Category:Unidentified organisms and Category:Unidentified plants and their subcategories to have a better idea what the emerging de facto standard is. --Foroa (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take an english-dutch-dictionary to find aut the difference between „unsorted“ and „unidentified“. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chemistry (unsorted) is clearly to be deleted. Category:Media needing chemical classification and Category:Unidentified chemistry should be merged into one (because as soon as something is identified, it should be classified by the means of categorization). I prefer the first version because it puts a stress on the needed work. --Eusebius (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structural formulae (or reaction mechanisms) are identified in the most cases, but it is another thing to categorize them correctly. While photographers of animals or plants could not exactly identify the object, the uploaders of structural formulae (normally) always know what they drew. Hence, a category named “Unidentified chemistry” is nonsense for these images. However, I could live with Category:Media needing chemical classification. --Leyo 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Leyo, Category:Media needing chemical classification seems to be the best option. It's really best to not spread things across different maintenance categories. Patrícia msg 18:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all media in Category:Chemistry (marked as requiring diffusion) need classification, so I see no point in adding a separate "classification" category unless collecting problem cases under the dust. --Foroa (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest du keep Category:Media needing chemical classification and to convert Category:Unidentified chemistry to a category redirect. Category:Chemistry (unsorted) can be deleted. I will do that soon. --Leyo 11:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to use Category:Unidentified chemistry as for any other unidentified topic, the de facto standard on commons. I can convert Category:Media needing chemical classification to a redirect if need be. --Foroa (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know your position, but it seems that you are alone with it. To have Category:Unidentified chemistry as a redirect is a compromise between keeping as the main category and deletion IMHO. --Leyo 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale thread: Category:Chemistry (unsorted) was already deleted on 2009 April 6 by Foroa. Consensus seems to be to use Category:Media needing chemical classification that emphasizes the work to do. Converting Category:Unidentified chemistry into a redirect. -- User:Docu at 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Flickr

edit

I think this should be renamed to Category:Flickr images or Category:Images from Flickr to match others in Category:Image sources and to reserve Category:Flickr for the subject itself (e.g. images like File:Flickr wordmark.svg and File:Flickrlickr.png). --Rocket000(talk) 20:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and would prefer "Images from Flickr", as the intention of the category would be clearer. Category:Images from Flickr should then also be a sub-category of Category:Flickr. --rimshottalk 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, it should definitely be renamed. However, it should be "Files" not "Images" because there actually is a few videos from Flickr on Commons. --Yarnalgo (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this thread. Most favored solution seems to be to rename this to Category:Files from Flickr. The current category may continue to exist to hold some of the other subcategories. -- User:Docu at 11:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Apple Computer

edit

Apple Computer dropped "Computer" from its title, and has been known simply as Apple Inc. since January 2007. --Dream out loud (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to move to Category:Apple Inc. (computer) or Category:Apple Inc., USA as there can be other Apple Inc's or other Apple companies over the world. --Foroa (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for Category:Apple Inc., since it is unambiguous as of today. If another company arises with the same name, I guess they should get the disambiguation suffix (unless their apples are really good). --Eusebius (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, I think that company (and brand) names should always contain a disambiguation since there is just too much overlap (Bleu, Orange, Trust, Apricot, Pinnacle, ...) and no international rules that forbid to use the same name in other countries.
Another preference I have that there should be no priorities who carries or not a disambiguation term, except some exceptional famous exceptions, such as Rome, Paris, London. Experience shows that most contributors that want to use a specific name find "their" name the most important, and the name that carries no disambiguation collects all the items as people tend to use the first name that corresponds.
While Apple computers is well known, Apple Inc is less known and as can be seen in en:Apple (disambiguation) and connected disambiguation pages, many things can start with Apple. There are some web URL that ressemble apple-inc that are not related directly to Apple Inc. --Foroa (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With both Category:Apple (disambiguation) and Category:Apple Inc., would there be a real problem? It seems consistent with most of what you say. --Eusebius (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussion. Category renamed to Category:Apple Inc.. -- User:Docu at 12:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unknown vs Unidentified

edit

Renaming certain categories "unknown" to "unidentified"

transfered from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism

user:foroa, user:Siebrand, and user:Multichill are have already renamed and are continuing to rename a couple hundred categories from unknown to unidentified. Category:Unknown Carabidae, Category:Unknown Lepidoptera, Category:Unknown Odonata and so on. There was no discussion. The categories were not even tagged for moving. These three users just decided about this operation just among themselves. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing secret, this is part of the daily harmonisation work, mostly based on simple common sense and majority naming. When I started harmonisation of unknown/unidentified naming, there where about 60 "Unknown xxx" items , 700 "unidentified xxx". See for your self: Unknown categories and Unidentified categories. You might think that we do all that moving work for fun and to annoy people. This happens to be not the case. --Foroa (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It seems to me that "unidentified" is the most used term, as in Category:Unidentified insects or Category:Unidentified subjects. A quick search gives this 2006 discussion. The change wasn't particularly controversial. Maybe you could have contacted one of the users on their talk page before reporting them for "vandalism"? Pruneautalk 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "unidentified" is more specific, especially when dealing with species or similar, whereas "unknown" is an Commons-internal category-term that is displaid when the source of a image/file is missing.--Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the species in those categories are indeed known (to science) but unidentified. There could be an unknown category structure, but this would contain only species that are not described and as yet unknown to science. As such the renaming exercise is the common sense thing to do. Lycaon (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A two year old discussion is obviously not sufficient. It is not to much to ask for a proper procedure; putting moving or cfd templates on the category pages starting a discussion and waiting for some time for reactions. Currently the whole thing is a giant secret operation. Obviously Foroa does not have to follow commons guidelines. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that you don't like how these moves were handled, do you have a specific reason to oppose to these changes? Do you have an example of a category for which the Unidentified denomination would be wrong? –Tryphon☂ 12:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Chemistry (unsorted). Because this whole operation is being covered up other mistakes will only be found out afterwards when other people start complaining. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cirt, the answer is that it is not. I concider this discussion closed, and would urge anyone with opinions about "unidentifyed" vs "unknown"/"unsorted" etc to voice their concerns at the relevant talkpages and/or Commons:Categories for discussion. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finn, there are no relevant talkpages because Foroa thinks that a discussion is unecessary plus my attempts to discuss the matter are ridiculed or ignored ([1]).--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: Are the above described actions vandalism? Certainly not, whether or not they are appropriate (most probably) is a different matter, but they are in good faith. Thus, the "vandalism" board is not the appropriate place for this. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are clearly not in good faith. If they were Foroa would not circumvent the discussion. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly not vandalism, thus this is an inappropriate location for this discussion. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then have at least the grace to tell me the appropriate location. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Gracefully open a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the category renamings begins here:

Not really similar I think. Anyway, the moves look trivial to me, and coherent with the existing structures of unknown and unidentified stuff. Really no problem for me. --Eusebius (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the "unsorted" category question is different, and don't have a problem with moving "unknown" to "unidentified", perhaps a category redirect should be left under the "unknown" version. But I think it is important for bot operators to be able to cite some discussion or category scheme when making bulk changes like that. As a slight tangent, there are some images that are basically "unidentifiable" (eg File:Gulls_in_south_pond_1.jpg, File:Seagulls_and_bird.JPG) which in the long run will clog up "unidentified" categories as they will stay there forever. Thoughts? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm creating one tree for "Unidentified, unclassified, unknown or mis-labelled images" (from {{Unidentified header}}). Only a couple of categories are in the form "unknown something" and i don't want to have any confusion with Category:Unknown. Multichill (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: the problem is the same for many "unidentified" categories. There are places that are totally unable to identify (except by the photograph), for instance (File:Airplanes at sunrise.JPG). The question is, do we consider these categories as "to be identified", or just "unidentified"? In my opinion we should not worry about that and leave the two notions merged, because what is unidentifiable to somebody could be identified by one by-passer some day, so it's rather difficult to draw the line. --Eusebius (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is sometimes a conflict when someone is using such a category to put new (unsorted ;-) images to keep them from cluttering up other identified categories - I suppose as with all categories the category page should describe what it is for, even if it is "obvious" to the creator :-). You are right, it is difficult to say something can never be identified, eg the uploader could one day come by an supply more information. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Unidentified xxx" should be only for pictures where there is a chance that an expert can improve the categorisation. Otherwise, such as for File:Gulls in south pond 1.jpg, they should be in the general category:Laridae (or a specialized category, such as "Groups of gulls", "Flocks of Gulls", ...).
Note that Category:Unknown on Commons has a completely different meaning: problems with the description, license or rights of the picture. So we better keep that clearly different. --Foroa (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing old thread. No further actions seems required. -- User:Docu at 12:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Driving railway coaches

edit

Scope of the category Category:Driving railway coaches and this subcategories like Category:Driving railway carriages by country is dubious. "Driving coach" can have two different meanings: "Motor car" (en:Railcar, Motor coach) or "en:Control car" (Control coach). Both those types of coach can be a part of en:multiple unit, but a railcar can not be a part of multiple unit often.

I'm know too little the English and US terminology. But scope of those categories should be better described and the content of them should be re-sorted. --ŠJů (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railcars (self-propelled) and Category:Rail motor coaches are identical themes, though the description contradicts. --ŠJů (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category is meant for coaches with a cab. They are mostly used for push-pull trains. Those that are part of a multiple unit must normally be put under multiple units. There is quite a variety of terms for these coaches or carriages. American use is cab car or control car, British terms are driving trailer or combinations starting with "driving" like driving van trailer (DVT) or driving brake standard open (DBSO). I can't discover the term driving carriage in British rail literature but I admit I haven't read all books that exist... A native British speaker and rail expert may help us here. Gürbetaler (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose "driving coach" means coach with a cab. But there are two types of coach which have cab: motor coaches with cab and trail coaches with cab. Question arises whether the term "driving coach" ("driving carriage") means the second type only or the railcars and motor coaches are ranked among them as well. The second problem is, how much the vehicles must be connected to be told that it is "multiple unit". What is the decisive criterion? The compatibility toward other types? --ŠJů (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A motor coach is normally expected to have a cab without mentioning this fact. However, the British designation system for multiple units calls them driving motor against driving trailer, but also non-driving motor for a vehicle in the middle of a consist but without cab. A driving coach is a vehicle without motor. -Gürbetaler (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A multiple unit is either a consist with more than one motor car/coach/carriage in it or a vehicle or trainset with MU ability.Gürbetaler (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Railcars and Motor coaches are NOT the same thing. Simply said, railcars run single or with a trailer, motor coaches can replace locomotives. Sure, there isn't always a clear borderline between the two but description on the pages gives a good idea what belongs there. Gürbetaler (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the distinction between "railcar" and "motor coach". Both have a motor. Both are a passenger coach. Both can run single. Both can have one or more trailers (coaches), i. e. both can replace a locomotive. What's the difference? I don't know if it is somewhere made some difference, but we in the Czech Republic have a common term for both and I can't imagine how to make some borderline. Does it depend on size of a vehicle? --ŠJů (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is also a linguistic problem. Railcar translates as Schienenbus or Leichttriebwagen in German and autorail in French. Motor coach is a Triebwagen or Schlepptriebwagen in German and automotrice in French. However, there is no exact borderline. And the translations I gave are not exact matches. But generally spoken, a motor coach is stronger than a railcar. Thus, a railcar can't pull the same number of trailers than a motor coach can.
After all it might be the easiest to merge the two categories, calling them Category:Rail motor coaches and railcars and this would be Triebwagen und Schienenbusse in German and automtrices et autorails in French. Gürbetaler (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Czech Republic have each of this types its own history (in 1920-s came the first ones to lokal tracks, in 1930-s the second ones as fast trains), however the official terminology knows only "motorový vůz" (Triebwagen) for both types. (By the way, is said that in 1936 were Czechoslovakian railways the most motorized railway company from Europe). "Autobus" is only one of slang nicknames of most used class 810. However there exist some "mezzo" types.
I think, we can keep such separation for countries, where it is generally established, but the international umbrella categories should be together. Alternatively (the best solution?), the Leichttriebwagen (Schienen buses, Railcar) should by a subcategory of Triebwagen (Motor coach). --ŠJů (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In German, der Leichttriebwagen ist clearly a subtype of Triebwagen. Does exist some common (superordinate) name in English for both? --ŠJů (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem starts at the point where British motive power booklets only know multiple units and nothing else. And that's a correct view for British railways. But looking at German, French and Swiss railways I know many vehicles that don't fit in the EMU or DMU category (see above: a consist with more than one motor car/coach/carriage in it or a vehicle or trainset with MU ability):
With the German category Triebwagen it would be easy, sure. But I don't know an exact english match. Gürbetaler (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At Czech and Slovakian tracks, as i know, there was only one type (two prototypes) of motor coach/car, that couldn't be joined: ČSD Class M290.0 (Tatra 68). It very resembles File:Swiss Rail ABe 4 4 2704 AB 43.jpg File:OeBB-RBe2-4.jpg. It seems to be pointlees to create some special category "railcars in..." for this one type only. Most types of motor coachs have its un-motoring counterpart with compatible design (look), but such coaches can be drawn with common locomotive as well. Is it multiple unit, but isn't? Presently all Czech diesel motorcoachs/motorcars and all Czech diesel multiple units are categorized as Category:Diesel multiple units of the Czech Republic, which is not located into the international "motor coachs" category. It appears to me as not to be ideal. But I don't know why to solve it. Czech electric powered coachs are typically a part of electric multiple unit: exceptions was File:EM 400.jpg at the first Czech electrified railway (it is categorized as "electric multiple unit") and electric-powered coachs/trams at formerly narrow gauge suburban semi-tram tracks in the Ostrava surroudings: those coachs are received as trams. --ŠJů (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is what I tried to explain. In many countries the two categories Category:Locomotives and Category:Multiple units would do. But in some countries it would not do and Category:Rail motor coaches or Category:Railcars (self-propelled) are needed in addition.- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

⇐In the context of this category, a Driving coach is one which is used to remote control a locomotive at the far end of a train. This is the British English usage. The USAian equivalent is Control Car. Multiple units are self contained-fixed formations with driving coaches at their outer ends (these go in a separate cat depending upon their power source). This is the European usage - in the USA a multiple unit is something different. Single-car self-propelled coaches are usually treated a multiple units. HTH Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussion. A full category description was added on April 3. It seems to answer the question that triggered this thread. No further action seems required. -- User:Docu at 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

How to organize Category:Rolling stock ?

edit

We are now back on the question how to categorize within rolling stock. We could start from the UIC numbering scheme and define the main categories

  • motive power (Triebfahrzeuge) exchange code 90-98
  • coaching stock (Reisezugwagen) exchange code 50-79
  • freight rolling stock (Güterwagen) exchange code 00-49 and 80-89
  • service vehicles (Dienstfahrzeuge) exchange code 99 and 60, 40, 80

Gürbetaler (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By country first, then within the countries based upon the local terminology and then create super cats to bring the similar vehicles together. UIC numbers are not very useful as they don't have sufficient granularity in the motive power category. There are some categories in Category:Rolling stock which might bear some investigation: [:Category:Motive power] adds no value. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UIC numbering isn't an ideal utility. It's no practical. But we can to have a respect to them. We cannot give priority a criterion of motive power to the prejudice of other relevant criteria. It means, multiple units (94 and 95) should be categorized together and inserted as a group into both tractive and driven vehicles. But the beginning question (which is disctinction between railcars / rail coachs / multiple units) isn't facilitated by the UIC numbering. I think, they can be differentiated within some countries and can not be differentiated in other countries. Btw, UIC numbering of tractive vehicles includes the traditional national numberings, which can use some specific criteria. --ŠJů (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to understand the UIC numbers as "master criteria", I just mentioned them to show more clearly about what I am speaking. I would like to know why Category:Motive power doesn't add any value. It is the only way to bring locomotives, multiple units, motor coaches and railcars together. And basically I agree with ŠJů that there are national preferences as to whether a vehicle is a railcar or a motor coach or a multiple unit (or even a locomotive). And if I am not mistaken, Railwayfan2005 said more or less the same.
First thing that we should decide on: Would coaching stock and freight rolling stock include motorized vehicles? Are there better terms for the four categories I proposed above?Gürbetaler (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about trams? Is this the fifth main category?

Next step are the attributes that are "normally" to be used with the above main categories:

  • electric
  • battery
  • diesel
  • steam
  • fireless
  • gasoline
  • hybrid
  • gas turbine
  • horse

and on a second level:

  • narrow gauge
  • rack
  • rubber-tyred
  • linear motor
  • monorail
  • miniature
  • historical or heritage
  • postal
  • military
  • mining
  • touristic
  • rapid transit

The main categories should be sorted

  • by country
  • by manufacturer
  • by colour (don't know why, but Wikimedia is for everybody...)

Gürbetaler (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) updated 7 April 2009[reply]

Batteries are electric. Diesel, gasoline, etc are Internal Combustion. Two steps back though. What do you believe to be broken with the current structure? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question is, if the above main categories are accepted or if it should be
  • locomotives
  • multiple units, motor coaches and railcars
  • trams
  • passenger stock
  • non-passenger stock
  • freight rolling stock
  • self-propelled service vehicles
  • service vehicles
And we could also discuss to bring the attributes on two levels:
  • electrically-powered
    • electric
    • battery
  • internal combustion
    • diesel
    • gasoline
    • gas turbine
  • ???
    • steam
    • fireless
  • hybrid
  • animal-powered
    • horse
  • cable-powered

Gürbetaler (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me the second option makes sense, something needs to be done soon because what we have is very confusing, another thing is that Europeans have all kinds of codes, that to me and i believe the rest of the world is very confusing, on both sides we may have to give up some technicalities in order to come up with a neutral, user friendly approach, i´m not a technical genius in all these terminologies but i do love rail travel, imagine the regular folk who wants to understand what's going on, lets get on it, Prost Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see a new contribution to this subject! I support what you say. Just two questions:
  • Is it o.k. to put luggage vans or mail vans under "non-passenger stock" or could we get on without this category?
  • Do you prefer the two-step attributes (e.g. internal combustion - diesel) or only one step (e.g. diesel)? In other words, would you like to find "diesel" as subcategory of locomotives or rather "internal combustion" which is then split into "diesel" etc.?
-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gürbetaler, I do not know if i´m the right person to answer technicalities like these, but, i believe, on a "regular folk" point of view, luggage vans and mail vans should be under "non-passenger stock", and diesel, gasoline... under internal combustion, if this makes any sense?.
On the "How to organize Category" dilemma, i went a step further and made up a basic chart in order to keeps sections organized, see in Spanish Wikipedia "Unidades de tracción ferroviaria" on bottom of page (I´m active on English Wikipedia also) which i think helps organize "Rail traction units". There is still also a lot of confusion among English and Spanish speaking Wikipedia about Tram and Light rail which i have been slowly straightening up in the Spanish Wikipedia.
In order for all this to be understandable, in this rapidly changing world, I would suggest doing doing some simple "Graphic Drawings of rolling stock", people now days capture images very well, let me know if you are interested, we could work this out together, i´m a graphic designer and have several maps and technical drawings done already (Configuración automotriz). Please let me know your thoughts Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet seen such a thing on WikiCommons but I know them from de.wiki. Yes, I would find it a good idea to have a nvaigation help for the "normal user". Will you make a proposition?--Gürbetaler (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And could you help in the discussion on the Category:Rolling stock discusion page whether trains are a subcategory of rolling stock or if rolling stock is a subcategory of trains. Thank you!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale discussion. Please open new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 13:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cycling infrastructure in Germany

edit

The category Category:Cycling infrastructure in Germany is duplicate, it has similar content as the category Category:Bikeways in Germany. The category Category:Cycling infrastructure in Germany deviates form standard categorization of similar images: absolute majority of countries is incorporated into Category:Bikeways by country. There only 3 other categories named "Cycling infrastructure in (country)" and all of this cases are halfempty paralel duplicates of established category "Bikeways in (coutry)".

The category Category:Cycling routes in Germany has quite similar content as well.

I propose to remove all this subcategories "Cycling infrastucture" and "Cycling routes..." and merge their content into "Bikeways..." categories. For route marking, it suffices subcategories "Cycling route signs..." and subcategories of particular ways and routes. --ŠJů (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Wst question 13:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree quite seriously - categorisation need not only think of what is there, but what logically can be there. "bike racks in Germany" may not exist at the moment (though I may spend some time later in creating just that and populating it) but it is "cycling infrastructure" yet is NOT a bikeway.
If there is a small country called EXAMPLE and that country has no transport-related pictures except 3 images in "Roads in EXAMPLE", with that category listed under "Transport in EXAMPLE", then we would not delete "Transport in EXAMPLE" as a category name either, just because at that moment, "Roads in EXAMPLE" would do. Ingolfson (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with Ingolfson that Category:Cycling infrastructure in Germany may be useful. But nearly every their current content should be moved in the subcategory Bikeways in Germany. By the way, bike racks are logically often a part of bikeway equipment. --ŠJů (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Please look again. There are now the following categories:
These kinds categories are what "cycling infrastructure" is for, because they do not fit the "Bikeways" logic - I know they weren't here 20 minutes before. But I rather did spend that time creating them and sorting images into them than see a category be removed which I feel we would only have had to recreate soon again. Cheers, 09:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I also did somework in the other countries that currently have "cycling infrastructure" cats, so they as well, aren't just "bikeways" either. Ingolfson (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking me for my opinion ŠJů - especially since we usually disagree! Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you. I moved all images and categories of bikeways from this category to category of bikeways and some few images of other objects to appropriate categories. Much else remains to be done regarding assortment of this material (number of images has no location category, many trails and routes should have its own category etc.), but the merits of this entry is already. The relation between "bikeways", "cycle paths" and "cycling routes" is the next question. --ŠJů (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a cycle path is a type of bikeway that is NOT on a road, while a cycle lane might be called a bikeway that is on the road. A cycle route could be on anything - a trail, a road, even (well, in some countries) on a beach or something - and also may change its physical form all the time. Basically it's just a concept + signs, rather than a surface infrastructure. Ingolfson (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Per Ingolfson. Nillerdk (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2

Personally, I have the following comments (nothing being really blocking):

To come to a more constructive debate, I would suggest that Nillerdk and ŠJů (Germany ?) develop each their ideal solution on a specific "cycling in country" category, and once it is stable, we can discuss it properly. It might be equally useful to limit the debate in a first round to the definitions, just to make sure that we discuss about the same things. --Foroa (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded above (cycling infrastructure). Nillerdk (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cycling infrastructure contains or ought to contain a lot of things. Besides any kinds of service it includes urban cycling networks as well as touristical cycle routes. It includes independently traced cyclepaths and cycle lanes as well as roadside cyclepaths and cycletracks on roads. And it contains traffic lights, traffic signs and signposts for cycle-traffic.--Ulamm (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing old thread. Category was kept/developed in the meantime. -- User:Docu at 12:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cycling infrastructure

edit

I have already posted on the Village Pump (sorry for not posting here in the first case - was unaware). I'm proposing this category scheme for Category:Cycling infrastructure. I would like your comments. The goal is to minimise the chaos within this category tree. I am in disagreement with User:ŠJů whether to use a "networked" or a "hierarchical" structure (he's in favor of the former). Please note his arguments here (starting with: I never ...): [2]. Thank you Nillerdk (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussions are Category talk:Cycling routes, Category talk:Cycling infrastructure and primarily Category talk:Bikeways. I think, this depiction of passed disputes isn't just exhaustive and correct. The diminutive question, whether is to be in the category "bikeways" one element in addition or isn't to be, means no "chaos". Separate and individual improvement proposals can be stated, but the category structure is functional in principle and there's no need to create some complex reconstruction. It is necessary to sort many insufficiently or bad categorized photos, not make some revolutions regarding category structure. --ŠJů (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2

Foroa has suggest to start the discussion over, starting with the main points. Let's do that and let's keep the discussion shortest possible. The first crucial problem is whether there is a adult-child relationship between cycling routes and bikeways and if there is, which one. This question is identical to: Can a category cycling routes be descendant of bikeways (a), bikeways of cycling routes (b) or none (c)? Before restating my personal point, I would like to ask (especially ŠJů) if you agree in clearing this question (reaching consensus) before going any further. If you agree, you are - as far as I'm concerned - welcome to state your point with a short argument. Nillerdk (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off all we should reflect that in current categorization are "bikeways in..." categories used and established as umbrella categories for all types of ways which are anyhow recommended or signed for cyclists, no matter whether segregated or partly seperated or full shared. This system is functional, practical, intelligible and unified. We have acknowledge that the word "bikeways" in names of such categories mean neither "way signed by cycle path sign" nor "way marked by color lane" nor "separated way for cyclists" (though this narrower meaning of this word exists certainly too), but the word "bikeways" in names of categories means all types of ways which are anyhow recommended or signed for cyclists.
Let's see that categories "Bikeways in..." can have subcategories by separate regions or cities, by type of equipment (types of signs), by particular ways or routes (and maybe in addition by type of way - shared road, trail, cycle path, collored cycle path, shared cycle-pedestrians path, cycle lane, shared cycle+bus lane etc. That's a good idea.). If some route or way haven't its own category yet, photos of it are placed directly in "bikeways" category for the time being. If we understand this system, so we have to acknowledge, that photos of cycle routes and categories of photos by cycle routes belongs into "Bikeways in..." category.
I have seen, that attempt to found "cycle routes" categories aside from "bikeways" categories conduced to unlucidity, disconnectedness and duplicity mainly. That way acquits ill IMHO this once. Even if would categories "Cycling routes in..." filled up purposefully, such category will perform as "bikeways by route" category factually. That's why they have to be subcategories of "Bikeways in...". I propose to keep the current system in principle and eventually to found "Cycle paths in..." categories for "bikeways" in narrower meaning. --ŠJů (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the original question: one specific cycle path or bikeway can be a part of some one or more marked cycle route or can be not marked as part of some route. Some specific cycle route can involve (use) one or more cycle paths, but all used roads and trails and paths are "bikeways" in broader meaning. But category "Cycle routes in SOMEWHERE" can involve ONLY photos or maps or equipment of bikeways (in broader sense) and that is why those have to be a subcategory of "Bikeways in SOMEWHERE". The category "Bikeways in SOMEWHERE" can involve among others photos of cycle ways which aren't signed as named or numbered cycle routes, that is why such category should not be a subcategory of "Cycle routes in SOMEWHERE". If we had this couple of categories without direct relation, it will generate chaos and duplicity, two uncommitted categories with similar content, as we have seen in some few of cases. --ŠJů (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final points from my side

ŠJů, I understand perfectly what system you favour, and you understand perfectly what system I favour. We disagree, but I respect your opinion. I don't respect, however, that you keep recategorizing according to your personal plan (more than 500 cycling-related edits just during the last 4 days) while the topic is under discussion. At the same time you have blamed me for making "chaotic changes" ... (At this point I have to admit that I made a few strange edits before the discussion started, as I became aware that the categorization of cycling infrastructure, as it is now, is far from ideal).

The answer to my own question above: None. Everyone agrees that cycling routes and bikeways (in the narrow sense in ŠJů's terminology) are different concepts:

  • There are bikeways which don't belong to a cycling route (The small municipality Copenhagen has 350 km segregated bikeways of which currently only 10% are named, numbered or otherwise signed cycling routes)
  • There are cycling routes which don't follow bikeways (Denmark has more than 3000 km of signed and named national cycling routes, mostly following calm countryside roads without bikeways)
  • There are certainly also cycling routes which follow bikeways (for example the mentioned 10% in Copenhagen or large sections of riverside cycling routes in Germany)

ŠJů's idea to broaden the bikeway concept to also include ordinary (car) roads which are used as part of cycling routes seems simplifying (positive) at the first glance. Unfortunatly, it has the following serious disadvantage(s) for the users:

Example: Suppose a user A needs some photos from the Rhine Cycling Route. If there was a category Category:Rhine Cycling Route, he would go there. He would find photos of segregated bikeways, roads which the cycling route follows, photos taken from along the cycling route but not showing bikeways/roads/signs (views), signs and maybe some infrastructure closely related to the cycling route like bicycle ferries, bicycle racks etc. Voìla.

Suppose another user B needs some photos of bikeways in Koblenz. If we choose to define bikeway in the "narrow" sense (road with special cycling infrastructure), he would go to Category:Bikeways in Koblenz (or if it doesn't exist yet to Category:Bikeways in Rheinland-Pfalz) and he will find photos of segregated bicycle facilities, but no ordinary roads marked as cycling routes. Some of the files, he finds, will probably also be found be user A in Category:Rhine Cycling Route, because Koblenz is at the Rhine. User B could also have another wish: To find photos of different implementations of bicycle lanes. He will go to Category:Bikeways by type and then Category:Cycle lanes and he will find what he needs.

Notice that user A and B have two completely different goals: While A wants files associated with an abstract route (through many area-locations), B wants files of certain physical objects (in certain area-locations).

My points:

Lastly, I'll ask User:Foroa, User:Ingolfson, User:MGA73 and the rest of the community for their opinions. Neither I nor User:ŠJů have much more to add I think - we have already been repeating ourselves. Nillerdk (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned previously, first of all it is necessary to classify hundreds of photos, which are insufficiently categorized. Yes, recently I categorized many photos, which have been inserted directly in "Bikeway signs" category (I distributed them by meaning and by country) or in "Bikeways" category (I distributed them by country). It is needed to categorize many of them more precisely: by city or region or by specific way or route - many of them lack some location category etc. Categorization by type of way (shared road, trail, various types of urban or rural cycle paths, cycle lanes etc.) can by added surely as well - I made nothing what obstruct it (just I added more photos into the specific category of cycle path signs or into cycle lane category recently). Let's give our effort to such usefull and needed work instead to struggle irreconcilablely for/against implacement of one category into the second category. Discussions about some marginal specific proposals should not restrain our constructive laborious work meanwhile. As I was saying, I'm not against existence of special categories for various types of ways for cyclists, but I'm against pointless doubling of categories and I advice to base upon the current system, which is workable in principle and can be developed furthermore without some (controversial) rebuilding. --ŠJů (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why we cannot to come to an agreement is, that You did bethink yourself that "bikeway" can mean only "segregated bikeway" and nothing else. Your question refered to "bikeways" and our self-answer to "segregated bikways". However the disputed categories are named "Bikeways" and not "Segregated bikeways" really. I never made some protest against existence of special categories for various types of segregated bikeways (as e. g. bicycle paths/roads or bicycle lanes). The fact, that presently in Denmark are urban bikeways mostly signed only as cycle paths and rural bikeways only as cycle routes shouldn't deny the need to have some common category for all types of bikeways (independently of type of signs and traffic segregation). By the way, "cycle path" is (by traffic and legislative aspects) more similar to some forest or rural trail than to cycle lane. How do you want to take it into account? --ŠJů (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nillerdk, Your examples indicate that you don't understand the principles of categorization yet. Categorization of a photo by some criterion does never restrain to categorization of the some one by other criterion. I respect this principle, You didn't respect it in some your edits.
see the definition Your link don't prove that the word "bikeway" can mean the segregated facilities only; moreover we discussed already that most of cycle lanes and cycle pahts are shared (not strictly segregated) and more ordinary trails are really segregated although they are not signed as "cycle paths".
"Every cycling route is important enough to have it own category" is absolute nonsense. Perhaps it is so in Denmark, but surelly not generally. For example, there exist or are planned about hundred of numbered cycle routes of first or second class in Prague and times out of number of third class, which are numbered only in documentation. Have we create own category for every cycling route, for every streetlamp, for every bus stop, for every vehicle, for every house? It's absurd.
Cycling signs are equipment of ways for cyclists or of their crossings. That's why category of cycling signs should be a subcategory of bikeways category. If Category:Cycling route signs of Elberadweg exists, it should be in Category:Elberadweg surelly and it is impossible to doubt of it rationally. If some photo portrayals at once some sign and the trail, it is no ovecategorization, if it is categorized by both of such objects. --ŠJů (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My final (for this round at least) comments:
  •  Support for the retention of "Cycling infrastructure" and "cycling infrastructure by country" scheme.
  •  Comment to retain BOTH cycle routes and bikeways, but define them better in a meta-description. Not all bikeways are routes, not all routes are bikeways. In my view, the two do not overlap in a way that allows us to conclusively merge, or place one of them under the other. Confusion will have to be avoided by clearer disambiguation, i.e. route = concept of a link, bikeway = physical facility. Not all routes then need categories, nor do all bikeways of course.

Ingolfson (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I had to add something after all - hunting through categories like "bikeways" while working on cycling infrastructure categories has found categories like bikeways in japan, which was not linked to anything except the bikeways by country cat. In fact, all the cycling-related cats in Japan were pretty orphaned. Now they aren't, partly because they are in the cycling infrastructure logic now. Ingolfson (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a disagreement on some aspects of this proposal. Other categories suggested by the proposal don't seem to have been created or used since. It might be worth to formulate a proposal for the one or two open issues and resolve these and then present an updated proposal. -- User:Docu at 17:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Universities in Ontario

edit

Should be globally renamed to "Universities and Colleges in Ontario", as how we have similar categories for Alberta and Nova Scotia. --Tabercil (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but no cap on "colleges" (it should be "Universities and colleges in Ontario"). --skeezix1000 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Will be moved --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2009/03&oldid=34118604"