Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2011/09
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 September 2011
created by mistake OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, author request: accidental creation. --rimshottalk 12:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
created by mistake OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, author request: accidental creation. --rimshottalk 12:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
SPORTS MEDICINE 184.3.103.218 22:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Would you like to discuss anything about this category? --rimshottalk 13:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Closed, no reason given. --rimshottalk 12:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
empty + bad name -> deletion Trizek here or on fr:wp 20:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 12:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Kat is obsolet, Kat is now: Category:Friedrich Wasmann A. Wagner (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ist O.K. --Hajotthu (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 12:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Obsolete as same as Category:Monuments and memorials in Luxembourg --Jwh (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 12:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Category has to be renamed to Category:Locator maps of municipalities in Landkreis Rostock. 79.217.157.201 10:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 12:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The creator of this category has requested that it be deleted Gavin Collins (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 12:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The markers debuted in 1926, and that category has been created. Imzadi 1979 → 19:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 12:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Neighborhoods of San Francisco Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 12:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request
Empty category. Now the category is at "Category:Kutxak" (in plural). Another category with a similar name has been created with the name "category:Gipuzkoa Donostia Kutxa" for the homonyme savings bank. These changes have been made for disambiguation. Should be deleted. --Joxemai (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 12:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Typo in title, please delete. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 18:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
sduyt 109.224.29.235 15:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is there anything you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
What was there to discuss?Sting au (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I guess it was a bad-faith nomination by an anon. Loggerjack (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done, nothing to discuss. --rimshottalk 17:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There may be Renaissance Men, but what are Art Nouveau animals? delete. ~ NVO (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 12:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Empty category. I do not think we need it. Leyo 17:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK to delete: It looks like I created this a long time ago, when Commons was new. Back then we needed some broad categories, but it looks like it's much to general for today. Go ahead and delete if you wish. Walkerma (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - no longer needed. Ed (Edgar181) 13:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no politician by that name in Luxembourg Jwh (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- I deleted the empty category, sorry, it was my fault! --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, accidental creation. --rimshottalk 17:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
After I moved everything that didn't belong in the category out of it, it's now empty. Do we need it, or should it be deleted? Kramer Associates (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 12:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
2001 fairmont replace diff. 118.92.133.19 07:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Could you explain a bit more what you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 17:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Closed, no reason for discussion given. --rimshottalk 12:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only FOP violations. 84.62.204.7 18:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 12:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 14:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 14:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 12:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 14:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --Mormegil (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --Mormegil (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 15:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete as soon as File:Zloty_Sign.jpg is deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as soon as it was empty. --Mormegil (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 15:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 15:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 15:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 16:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 16:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 09:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 09:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 09:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Mormegil (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
please delete this cat, the lemma is wrong. It s not Bücher, but it s Büchner. I made a such one. ~ Peng (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, typo. --rimshottalk 12:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect category name; should be in english since this category is within the Commons scope 80.187.106.58 16:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 12:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Superfluous category: Category:Daewoo-FSO Polonez Truck Plus ROY is definately sufficient. Category:Daewoo-FSO Polonez Truck Plus ROY 1.6 i and Category:Daewoo-FSO Polonez Truck Plus ROY 1.9 D difer only in terms of slight different engine configurations. This is not useless since there is almost no optimcal difference in appearance of this type of car. 80.187.107.4 20:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Seconded. User Supertank17 has real issues with categorization, having already made most East European car categories nearly unnavigable and ignoring any community response. To me, the 18 photos of FSO-Daewoo ROY trucks would comfortably fit on a single page. There are similar problems with all of the other categories in Category:Daewoo-FSO Polonez Truck Plus. See Category:Polski Fiat 125p (16 III 1975 - 1982) for another example of his bizarre methods of categorization. For bonus points, try to figure out how this category fits into the rest of the 125p category tree! Mr.choppers (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Mr.choppers. Nice to see you still fault me for the categories that are already deleted (in some cases with my cooperation and might I mention in response to the community response that I'm supposedly ignoring, the same community BTW that decided at one point that since I don't agree with them on some points discussing these issues with me was for losers thus undermining the whole point of the discussion) or categories that are perfectly logical yet you refuse to spare even a moment of your time to understand them. I even included an in-depth guide for people unfamiliar with the subject. All I do is try to categorize these pictures to the best of my ability given the sometimes limited information I have about specific examples of these vehicles, that's why you see categories like Category:Polski Fiat 125p (16 III 1975 - 1982) and if you spare even a moment of your time to read my aforementioned guide or do some research of your own you'll realize that I have perfectly good reasons to categorize these pictures in such a way. However if you mind to stay on topic rather than go on your little tangent which gets increasing old I might add (your response to 80.187.107.4 had nothing to do with this particular category) I will admit that it might be a good idea to cut back on the more specific categories like this one since during my days working in the field so to speak I've seen many examples of how information this category is based on might not always be true. So I'll personally remove the engine-based categories leaving the ones based on the external look of the vehicle in question.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Consensus has been found. --High Contrast (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Superfluous category: Category:Daewoo-FSO Polonez Truck Plus ROY is definately sufficient. Category:Daewoo-FSO Polonez Truck Plus ROY 1.6 i and Category:Daewoo-FSO Polonez Truck Plus ROY 1.9 D difer only in terms of slight different engine configurations. This is not useless since there is almost no optimcal difference in appearance of this type of car. 80.187.107.4 20:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Consensus has been found (-> Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Daewoo-FSO Polonez Truck Plus ROY 1.6 i). --High Contrast (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this category is not needed. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 9 September, 2011 [09:12]
- I think we need some sort of subcategory beneath Category:Ubuntu Linux for fonts and typefaces. If you want to rename it, go ahead, but I don't think that just putting this typeface sample back in the main Ubuntu Linux category would be that helpful. Cheers. - Michael Barera (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- But why separating Ubuntu typefaces? We need to consider all other distros too, or a general Category:Free and open source typefaces. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 10 September, 2011 [10:38]
- That's a good idea: let's create the "Free and open source typefaces" category you suggested, and I think we should make the Ubuntu one a subcategory alongside any other distros that have typeface samples on Commons right now (and of course we can add new subcategories as needed). What do you think? --Michael Barera (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- But why separating Ubuntu typefaces? We need to consider all other distros too, or a general Category:Free and open source typefaces. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 10 September, 2011 [10:38]
- This has been moved to Category:Ubuntu Font Family. Is "Ubuntu Font Family" the name of a particular family of fonts, or is it just a descriptive name of the fonts found on Ubuntu? If it is not a name, it should be Category:Ubuntu font family. --rimshottalk 12:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is the name of a particular family of fonts, see [1]--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Closed, the proposed parent category has been created, fonts from this particular font family are now at Category:Ubuntu Font Family. --rimshottalk 23:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Contains only FOP violations. 84.62.204.7 19:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The violation is not proven until legally challenged. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)- Keep. No it doesn't, please stop with your bad-faith nominations. There are buildings old enough for copyright to expire (such as the Gare de Lille-Flandres) in the city. Wide-angle panoramics are also ok since any building on them will fit under de minimis. — Yerpo Eh? 20:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Closed as kept per Yerpo. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Es fehlt die Unterkategorie für den Stadtteil Kleiner Grasbrook Dirtsc (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Und warum hast du sie nicht einfach selbst erstellt, statt in diese Cat. ein Template reinzuknallen? It's a wiki. --Mogelzahn (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry. Ich hatte mir den Abschnitt zur Erstellung von Kategorien noch nicht angesehen und dachte, es wäre komplizierter. Werde mich bemühen, dass es nicht wieder vorkommt. --Dirtsc (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Closed, problem solved. Man hätte vielleicht etwas sensibler drauf hinweisen können ;) --rimshottalk 23:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Mistake in island name: Category has to be named Category:Aerial photographs of Helgoland. 79.217.157.201 10:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Info Heligoland is the English name of Helgoland. --Leyo 09:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept, as per Leyo. --rimshottalk 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
All the works of Niki de Saint-Phalle in this category should be deleted. There is no COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Niki de Saint-Phalle was dead in 2002. Tangopaso (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- While there may be no FOP in France, there is FOP in other countries where such works can be photographed. You can open a deletion request for the French photographs, but there is no reason to delete the entire category. --rimshottalk 21:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that most translations of the big red Template:NoUploads (the template on the category description page) are missing part of the explanation. What would be the easiest way to fix this?
- Fortunately Category:Niki_de_Saint_Phalle includes some explanation directly. -- Docu at 04:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I just marked the Italian entries (no FOP in Italy). --User:G.dallorto (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept, the deletion of files should be discussed elsewhere. --rimshottalk 21:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Empty category, all images were copyright violations Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
unnötig und leer Xocolatl (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Empty, created three years ago and never populated. Unnecessary for now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination withdrawn: I see it now has some content, although I wasn't notified of that. I prefer not to operate in vacuo especially when I have set aside a month of my time to get this category tree into better shape. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done, nomination withdrawn. --rimshottalk 21:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The category name very vague and does not go conform with the Commons scope. This supposed "fire" is surely not notable just because there was one and, as it is obvious, the category creator could not give further information of this event and not every flame in any house is notable on the Commons 79.237.178.19 09:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not notable fire. Commons is not Wikinews. --High Contrast (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
A category for a specific building. We have many such categories, but this one just has a single image because we only have one file related to this house. Why do we need a category for just one image? Delete and upmerge the contents to the paren categories Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- I created the cat & not opposed to it's deletion. I created it to distinguish it from other Henderson Houses in the Disambig page here. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
'Kept Part of disambuguation page Category:Henderson House for at least four Henderson Houses. --GeorgHH • talk 21:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This category is currently populated through templates. Its name seems fine when applied to subcategories, but it seems odd on files/images. Maybe it should be made hidden on files. -- Docu at 04:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Done -- Docu at 14:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Closed. No discussion. -- Docu at 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The category was created (and populated) basing on a completely incorrect wikipedia article, w:Cruising rod which I fixed today: random editors confused the tool with forestry calipers. Loggerjack (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Empty category. --GeorgHH • talk 20:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Change name to Wiesbaden-Nordenstadt in analogy with all other Category:Boroughs of Wiesbaden. Richtest (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Done. -Richtest (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Wiesbaden-Nordenstadt. --rimshottalk 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unecessary category. Appropriate place to collect all companies listed at the Frankfurter Börse will be a list at Wikipedia. The category on Commons only creates false connections (categorizing foreign companies under conpanies of Germany or economy of Germany). Move content to a list in Wikipedia, maybe add links to the company categories in the gallery Frankfurt Stock Exchange/Frankfurter Wertpapierbörse. --Martin H. (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm late. I think the category is not unecessary. Actually, there are many categories in Category:Companies by stock exchange including, New York, London and Tokyo. Why do you except only Frankfurt? If you have little appreciation for the category, please change by yourself because I'm busy now.--Halfd (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept No different to all the other similar categories in Category:Companies by stock exchange obvious. --GeorgHH • talk 20:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Contains only fictional symbols. 84.62.204.7 09:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Currently empty --Kramer Associates (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
kept Category is not empty. fictional symbols are not a problem here. --GeorgHH • talk 20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The category name is a bad combination of the german word "Gymnasium" with the english word "school". In english, a gymnasium is something different than it is in the german language. Please delete this category or remove it and create category like "grammar schools in Germany" - that would be correct since "grammar school" is the adequate translation of the german type of school. Thank you! 80.187.106.58 16:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- As you have probably noticed, this is for schools that are of the gymnasium level; the word "school" is for disambiguation. Contrast Category:Gymnasiums (schools) (places for education) with Category:School gymnasiums (places for athletics inside schools). How do we insure that (ignorant but well-meaning) native English speakers know where to put schools with "Gymnasium" in the name, rather than having them pile up (incorrectly) in Category:Gymnasiums for someone to sort out? Also, "grammar school" means secondary education in the UK but elementary (primary) education in the U.S. The description for Category:High schools and secondary schools in Germany says "Umfasst die Schultypen: Hauptschule, Realschule, Gymnasium, Fachschule, berufliches Gymnasium usw." Are all of those "grammar schools" or is it only the Gymnasium type that matches? --Closeapple (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- keep until a better alternative arises. Commons just follows the model of en:Gymnasium (school). Don't import British, or Canadian, or Burundian concepts. NVO (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The name may not be pretty, but (1) a German Gymnasium is a not the same as a grammar school and (2) we need a way to disambiguate it from gyms. This looks like the best solution for now. --rimshottalk 23:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 21:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a general discussion on category names for military ship and not necessarily specific to this category name.
Many category names for older military ships are named with the suffix "(ship, date)", such as the one shown here Category:USS Cumberland (ship, 1842). This appears redundant for U.S. military ships and I suspect this is true for other countries as well. The fact that the category has the prefix "USS" already classifies it as a ship. I recommend going with just "Category:USS Cumberland (1842)" with "1842" being the date ship was commissioned to show difference between different ships with the name "Cumberland". This will streamline the category name and accomplish the same as the previous method. I know there have been some similar CfD discussions on this issue.
This discussion only applies to older ships prior to use of the ship class being built into the ship number as seen here Category:USS Enterprise (CVN-65). FieldMarine (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Commons is place where the images can be found for articles in separate Wikipedias. It has its own systems of categorising, sometimes different from those Wikipedias. By categorising thousands of ships it became clear that a standardised way of categorising makes images of ships easy to find. The simplest way is to use categories by the name as painted on the hull of a particular ship. Everybody can read it and find the images of most ships by that name. Regardless the prefix in the wikipedia where the description is given. No problem at all withe the prefix there, because there is no problem with the language. Unfortunately ships are named after politicians, flowers, mountains, colours, ghosts, activities, moral entities, whatsoever. So a simple solution was to add the fact that we are dealing with a category of a ship. In that case we could also get rid of the prefixes, because these prefixes were language dependant and had even different meaning per language. SS can be a sailing ship as well as a steamship. Steam by expansion machines or turbines? MV, MS, M/V and so on can not be red on the vessel itself. We discussed it, invited specialised users of en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships in the discussion. After all, we skipped the prefixes for most ships, not if it was part of the name of the ship. A few ships have. M.V. Lomonosov (ship, 1962), M/V American Tern
- Only recently a solution came up for categories of ships with the same name. Please have a look Category:Columbia (ship) and Rotterdam (ship). Just a sigle image per ship per year of completion, that's all to recognise the ship you are looking for.
- Naval ships don't have their name painted on the hull, but a pennant number. So a not specialised user, who wants to illustrate an article about a naval ship, has to find the images via that pennant number or the name of the ship, if known. In both cases he/she can be served via Category:Ships by pennant number or Category:Ships by name. There is no use at all for a prefix IN COMMONS !!!! as USS (exept e.g. a wooden hulk where she has it painted on the bow), HNLMS (Dutch), HMS (English) and so on. Used in local Wikipedia descriptions: perfect, no problem. But not in COMMONS.
- Fishing ships have their license number painted on the bow or hull, seldom the name. For fishing vessels we have a Category:Fishing vessels by license number and Category:Ships by name. Have a look over there how the categorising was done. Categorising naval vessels can follow that system, as the license number has some resemblance with a pennant number. I made an example Category:Naval ships by pennant number. Perhaps better: Category:Naval vessels by pennant number.
- Even worse is the use of prefixes for coastguard vessels. HMCS Summerside and USCGC Willow will have other prefixes when they get another job to do, even so USNS Mount Baker (T-AE-34). Please have a look at Category:Ships by name and realise that more than 10.000 ships can be found there without any prefix. What is the use of confusing prefixes in COMMONS, when we don't need them to find images for articles? --Stunteltje (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I’m only referring to military ships that have USS or similar prefix. In these cases, I don't see how adding "Ship" to the suffix in the format "(ship, 1842)" adds value to distinguish this as a ship. That is already accomplished by the suffix so this is redundant, un-needed infomation. However, the "(1842)" as the date of the ship to distinguish between two ships with same name is helpful. To accomplish what is stated above about function of ship, etc. would be appropriate as information in the category description as I have done in this example Category:USS North Carolina (1820). Also, to distinguish between steam or sailing ships for ones with prefix "SS" can be better accomplished in sub-cats. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can appreciate not including the prefix such as HMS and SS. What I don't understand is: Why this system needs to be applied to all ships even ones with only a single use? If a second ship with the name were to come up, then the disambiguation can be accomplished at that time. I agree that Commons need not agree with the Wikipedias. Royalbroil 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't you overlooking several points Stunteljte made? (1) Prefixes like SS, MV, RV, USS, HMS, HDNS, USCG, are language specific -- while this is an international project; (2) Prefixes like SS, MV, RV, USS, HMS, HDNS, USCG, are opaque, except to the cognoscenti; (3) Acronyms get dated, and can confuse even those who aren't Back when I was young the acronym DEW meant "Distant Early Warning", as in DEW Line, a line of long range radar stations in the far north. Fast forward a couple of decades and I tried to participate in some discussions of the cold war, and spent some time figuring out that no one understood the DEW to mean Distant Early Warning -- they all thought it meant "Directed Energy Weapons".
- The category names dont just need to distinguish between different ships. A surprising number of ships are named after people. Having the name of the Category explicitly state that the category is about a ship is a great convenience.
- Lots of ships go through several names. Many ships of the United States Navy were decommissioned from the Navy, then recommissioned into the US Coast Guard, retaining the same name, but with a different prefix, and different pennant number. Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- FieldMarine: You may be right. How many these redundant names are there? I've only checked "USS+ship", there's not so many of them. Now (suppose this discussion ends in support of your proposal) someone has to actually create new categories, move files, redirect old categories and update all {{Commonscat}} links from all wikipedias. And you seem to be the only volunteer out there. It's all about available hours of volunteer work (your hours!). NVO (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- With regard to valuing volunteer hours... Organizing our images is important, and Stunteltje is knowledgable, patient, tactful, and has done a wonderful job of taking a lead in organizing our nautical images. Over the years I've spent hundreds of hours uploading nautical images, and over those years Stunteltje has probably spent at least as much time, possibly over a thousand hours in organizing our nautical images. It was Stuntletje who introduced me to Category:Ships by IMO number -- an excellent tool for organizing images of ships, and coping with ships that have gone through multiple names. Geo Swan (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can appreciate not including the prefix such as HMS and SS. What I don't understand is: Why this system needs to be applied to all ships even ones with only a single use? If a second ship with the name were to come up, then the disambiguation can be accomplished at that time. I agree that Commons need not agree with the Wikipedias. Royalbroil 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Uploading images is only the first step in having a useful repository. Organizing, classifying, and categorizing those images is what really makes those images useful. I played no role in the initiative to use Category:Ships by name and the other categories Stunteltje mentioned. But I fully support this initiative. I believe the important part of this initiative is that we choose names that apply to all ships and ship-like vessels, and which do not require specialized knowledge of local naming conventions. Although it might seem like everyone knows what USS or HMS mean, not everyone does know. Worse, that are probably lots of people who think they know what the prefix means, and get it wrong.
Lots of naming schema are possible. In some cases it is possible to come up with an alternate naming schema that is just as good as the one we are using. But, if a perfectly valid schema is in use, I wouldn't even consider replacing it with one that is merely just as good. Volunteers have already devoted a lot of time and energy in to the Category:Ships by name schema. Out of respect for the efforts of those who put in that effort, I suggest we defer to their schema, unless we find a schema that is markedly superior.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
All I’m recommending is a streamlined approach to the cat names of military ships by eliminating the redundant & unnecessary “ship” in the “name of ship (ship, date)” format. I’m still not clear what the purpose of “ship” does in the cat name for military ships. We know it’s a ship from the prefix. The real classifying about the functions or type of the ship should come from the subcats and/or the cat description. For military aircraft, it’s like saying, “F/A-18C Hornet (airplane, date)” instead of just Category:F/A-18C Hornet. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am glad to have you confirm that you merely meant to suggest a streamlined process. But actually, I don't think your suggestion will make things easier, if it were to be endorsed it would require undoing thousands of edits over the last few months.
Now, repeating myself, your proposed schema isn't really markedly inferior, but, in my opinion, it isn't markedly superior either. So, given that your schema requires reverting thousands of edits it would not be worth adopting -- even if it was marginally superior to the current schema. There is no question that it won't save time. Geo Swan (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, so far, I find that the "ships by name" upcoming de facto standard is proving itself; Stunteltje, Docu and others did a great job indeed. Now, in a good year time, we have around 10800 ships, still a few hundreds of thousands to go. The question here if we have to make an exception on the naming for the relatively few US military ships (they appear first as having the highest visibility and coverage). And do we have to make exceptions for military naming conventions of other countries ? I don't think so. Let's stop wasting time to save in some cases a word in the category name; we need a system. --Foroa (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just being particularly opaque today, but the explanations provided make no sense to me. Category names like Category:Disney Magic (ship, 1998) make no sense whatsoever. They're overly long and doubly or triply redundant. Powers (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's what we initially thought of a weird name like Category:De Zeven Provinciën but it did not last very long. You would be surprised how often ship name reoccur for movies, books, paintings, hotels, restaurants, ... --Foroa (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just try to find the official name of the Titanic ship or a ship from 1885 with Victoria in its name. And we have less than 5 % of the database yet. --Foroa (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- How is Category:Disney Magic (ship, 1998) redundant? If someone recently sailed on the vessel, or recently saw an advertizement, one might remember this is vessel. Even something like Category:Disney Ocean Voyager might be the name of a movie. "Disney Magic" might be a themepark, or software suite. So the name you object to is not redundant at all. Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It’ redundant because it’s not needed to identify this specific ship. The fact that it’s a ship, including the type of ship can be better accomplished in the subcats and/or the cat description. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, don't you see utility in having the name of the category being meaningful enough that readers don't have to look inside the category to see what it contains? I just checked Category:Disney. Currently Category:Disney Magic (ship, 1998) is in Category:Disney Cruise Line. But it could have been in [[:Category:Disney. Geo Swan (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I oppose any move to remove "HMAS". All Royal Australian Navy (RAN) ships are known by Australians and those overseas to be HMAS NAME (example HMAS ANZAC), which ship has its HMAS NAME on the ship with the number painted on the hull. A lot of the ships when decommissioned by the RAN are scrapped or sometimes given to a maritime museum or sometimes sunk (for tourism). I see nothing wrong with keeping HMAS since you know it is a ship and you know it if from Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Alternately, when a vessel is decommissioned, from a navy, and recommissioned as a civilian vessel, there should be multiple categories. I believe the IMO number remains the same across commissionings. Personally, I have no objection to retaining prefixes like HMAS, on the grounds the prefix seems like part of the name. HMS Victory and the USS Constitution officially remain in commission. But I am not aware of any other museum ships that remain in commission. So should images of decommissioned museum ships be placed in the category that would include images from when they were in commission? Geo Swan (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing against the use of any prefix at all in the local Wikipedias for the general public. Even her or his Royal ships can remain Royal. But in Commons there is no use for. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Its not just local Wikipedias, in the real world they are known by the prefixes which is useful for Commons since it shows the ownership (whether it is RAN or US Navy). Many ships that have been decommissioned are still known with the prefixes by not just the public but the forces it/they served. Bidgee (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe the USS Constitution is decomissioned & it should retain he USS. Yes, a cat should contain info to identify it, but should not have redundant info, such as Category: USS Constitution (ship, 1797). The "ship" in this category name is not needed. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- May I make two requests?
- Could you make a greater effort to read what other contributors have written? I explicitly said that the USS Constitution and HMS Victory were exceptional, being museum ships that remained in commission.
- Could you please make a greater effort to address other contributors' counter-arguments?
- Your definition of redundant would require viewers look inside categories in order to identify their topic. I think you must be oblivious to what an enormous waste of time your proposal requires, because the sole justification for your proposal seems to be that you think it will save time.
- It has been pointed out to you that Category:Ships by name contains almost 11,000 members. Although the justification for your proposal is to save time you haven't addressed the really large expenditure of effort that has been put into implementing the perfectly adequate schema you don't like. Acceptance of your proposal would require someone recategorizing all of those ten thousand files because you think the schema is redundant for a small subset of the files. Another contributor has pointed out to you that no one seems to have much enthusiam for your proposal. They asked you if you would take the initiative to recategorize all those files, if your proposal was approved. I think this is a very good question and I am disappointed you didn't see fit to answer it. I request you answer it.
- You haven't addressed the point made by myself, and several others, that the prefixes require expert knowledge, and that, even then, experts think they agree -- when they don't. Another contributor brought up the excellent example of the Titanic. She and her sister ships were Royal Mail Steamers -- a prestigious prefix. But I bet a lot of people would be sure her prefix should be SS. The Titanic, her sister ships, and many of their rivals, received construction grants from the Navy, in return for making the vessels available for military service in wartime.
- Please, a number of people have made good faith efforts to address your concerns, and no offense, you just don't seem to be making a corresponding effort to honor the serious effort those other contributors are making to take your proposal seriously. If you are not serious about your proposal have you considered simply withdrawing your proposal? Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
2.1. As mentioned previously, the addition of “ship” in the category name is unnecessary & redundant. It does not add value to the cat name. We know it’s a ship in many ways, to include the parent cat, the prefixes, the subcats, the cat description, etc.
2.2. The important issue in the long-term is to have a category that makes sense. As Foroa pointed out, only a small portion of the “few hundred thousand to go” are categorized here. So to answer the question, the new category schema saves lots of time in the end. I would be happy to rename cats to the improved system.
2.3 As mentioned before, the type and function of ship should be covered in the subcats, not the category name to solve the problem mentioned here. This way, for example, a ship that has had multiple uses through the years can have multiple subcats to account for the changes or different uses. I’m not proposing to get rid of the official prefix & I agree the prefix needs to be correct. If there is debate about the prefix for a ship & what it means, such as the Titanic, that should be accomplished in the cat discussion for that ship.
Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- You claim "We know it’s a ship in many ways" -- but without offering any meaningful. I repeat that I think it is a mistake to require expert knowledge to figure out what a category contains. I continue to strongly suspect all your "many ways" require some kind of non-transparent expertise.
- Please don't call your schema the "improved system". Your system requires more work for viewers, lays a greater cognitive burden, all around, for a minuscule advantage of slightly shorter names.
- You keep asserting that viewers should be satisfied by being forced to look inside the category in order to figure out its contents. That is a lot of wasted effort, over and over again, when the name could preclude that waste of time by explicitly stating what the category contains. The great Will Rogers used to say "It is not what you don't know that gets us in trouble, it is what we know that just ain't so." I don't mean to be unpleasant, but it is not just the extra work generated by other contributors' assumption that would be the result of using your schema that concerns me. I am concerned that your arguments strongly suggest to me that you yourself are generating extra work for others due to your own misunderstanding of issues you think you understand perfectly.
You seem to think any category with a name that uses the prefix USS is a ship category. And you seem to think the same is true for the HMS prefix and other similar acroynms. I think you unaware of the Royal Navy's use of "stone frigates". The RN gives shore installations names that start with HMS. One can't assume that names that start with HMS are ships. In Canada the prefix HMCS is used for naval ships. In the UK it stands for "Her Majesty's Court Service". These acronyms are inherently unreliable, as I already pointed out with the acronym DEW.
Lets be realistic as to how categories are used. Generally uploaders guess at whether some appropriate category exists, use autocompletion to try plumb what that category is. If they find a category that looks OK, they don't look inside the category, to confirm they got the right one. A category name that is explicit as to what the category contains will save time when it prevents the wrong category being used. Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- For Wikipedia editors, I suppose it's tempting for US naval ships to just use the same naming convention as English Wikipedia:
- I just finished enumerating all ships with the same name on a Wikipedia page
- I just determined for which name there are several ships with the same name and require adding a year to the article name
- I just determined the year of commissioning of that ship
- Coming to Commons, I could loose all that ..
- Obviously I don't loose it. At Commons, there is still a redirect to the category name Commons uses and an interwiki back to the English Wikipedia article.
- The category name at Commons follows a specific scheme: "<name> (ship, <year of completion>)"
- The advantage of using that is that:
- it inserts itself in the naming convention of other ships at Commons
- it avoids the doubt if one needs to add a year or not (English Wikipedia only does if there are several of the same name)
- it makes it clear which year to use at Commons
- it clear that it's about a ship. "SMS" is generally about something else (at least in Europe). -- Docu at 09:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment Suggest closing this CfD. There has been no discussion for a year, and the focus of the subject was really about naming individual ship categories rather than about Category:Ships by name. It seems to me that there is no need to keep this discussion open anymore, and no need to continue displaying CfD header in Category:Ships by name. MKFI (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep per MKFI. Category:Ships by name is a valid category. If there need to talk about special categories, please talk elsewhere on a special discussion site. --High Contrast (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
website states it is not allowed to publish any pictures/video from the zoo [2] Michiel1972 (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is a question wether this is legaly enforcable. Any private property owner (like museums, etc) can forbit the taking of pictures, but can only demand you leave the premises, as you brake the house rules. (not the law) They cannot impose any restrictions once you have left the premises. The taking of pictures of animals is quite different from taking pictures of performances or artwork wich are copyrighted. Eventual problems are for the picturetaker, not the commons. If I take a pictures during a railway trespas, I stil can legaly upload the pictures on the commons (I have copyrigth protection), but I stil can get into problems about the trespas (the pictures are proof).Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose they could make it a condition of visiting the zoo, and might have civil remedy based on contract law, but certainly this would be strictly a non-copyright restriction. - Jmabel ! talk 23:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. See Commons:Image casebook#Museum and interior photography. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per the image casebook linked by LX. This is exactly the sort of situation that casebook addresses. cmadler (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment . Am I right in translating that the zoo allows cameras but tries to maintain copyright on any images taken with them?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think such a restriction on pictures of animals would get hold in a court. Yann (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Any rights the zoo may have would be non-copyright restrictions. The photographer still owns the copyright and that is all that is being licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept, as per Carl Lindberg and the similar analyses before. --rimshottalk 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Had to be erased, caus is now only a synonym of Pseudophasma Drägüs (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Redirected. --rimshottalk 06:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Not used, no educational value Torin (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 06:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Not used, no educational value Torin (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Upmerged to Category:Paintings by Viktor Sizov and deleted. --rimshottalk 06:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The architect Jules Brunfaut dies in 1942, no FOP in Belgium : To delede ? M0tty (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- But the building is from 1904, that's over 100 years old Oxyman (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- The date of construction of the building is not important. What matters is the date of the architect's dead for who the copyright is existing until 70 years after his death. --M0tty (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Can the images be suspended until 4 September 2012, then undeleted? Oxyman (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's systematic ! --M0tty (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Can the images be suspended until 4 September 2012, then undeleted? Oxyman (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- The date of construction of the building is not important. What matters is the date of the architect's dead for who the copyright is existing until 70 years after his death. --M0tty (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept, time healed this potential copyright violation. --rimshottalk 18:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Please suggest a better, non-ambiguous name. en:Metallophone is a broad class of instruments. The "metallophone" in this category is a specific instrument, made back in 1970s in the Soviet Union. ~ NVO (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- keep As of today, the nomination is invalidated. Loggerjack (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Closing since it has been resolved. ghouston (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect category name: a war cannot have an equipment. This category should be renamed or deleted 79.237.178.19 09:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, follows a cat structure in place. I recommend keep unless a better structure is presented. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Same --Foroa (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep as per comments. ghouston (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
duplicate to existing Category:Věstonická venuše Ragimiri (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Merged to the Czech name. --ŠJů (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Closed, since it has been resolved. ghouston (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Category not makes any sense. A ported cc license has not much to do with Category:Media of New Zealand as the hierarchical categorization ays at the moment, it maybe has something to do with New Zealand copyrights or general legislation, but only the license have to do something with that, not all files published under that licenses. If there is any content directly related to CC New Zealand you should categorize it here - an event, a press release, some information of CC NZ - but not all files that have been published under one of the ported licenses. Thats uneccessary categorization. Martin H. (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are seriously suggesting that a New Zealand category may not be sorted into the New Zealand category tree?. Wow! Sorry, that is about all that I can say about this. Ingolfson (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I suggest to not categorize a maintenance category under the topic categories, the appropriate place to link those two things will be a portal or project page, maybe you find some good stuff in Category:Commons projects. But this discussion is about something different. --Martin H. (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I appear to have crossed two different matters here. Which only leaves me more confused as per the above comment, though. Ingolfson (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- I moved it to Category:Creative Commons licenses. As a category containing only hidden/non-topical categories, it doesn't seem to belong in the main category tree. ghouston (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I renamed it to Category:Creative Commons licenses of New Zealand. --ghouston (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
And its subcategories. This seems to be a duplicate, redundant category tree. The subject has been discussed earlier for "Library exteriors vs Libaries" and "Church buildings vs Churches". This tree seems to be stillborn; its subcategories like Category:School buildings are underpopulated - content is in Category:Schools. Which, curiously, is also a subset of Buildings. Note that universities and colleges are not included (at least directly). I leave it to your judgement - should "education buildings" stay or should they go.
My opinion is, it's stillborn and has no future. There are no resources to deploy a fully grown cat tree and re-categorize countless schools, libraries, colleges etc. under "Educational buildings". There is, already, some experience with Category:Exteriors of library buildings. No go. The whole concept of "keeping buildings apart from organizations" seems counterintuitive, so images of school buildings will be categorized under "Schools", not "School buildings". NVO (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- "The whole concept of "keeping buildings apart from organizations" seems counterintuitive" - I disagree with the very basic statement on which your argument is founded. Keeping organisations apart from their buildings is NOT counterintuitive. A school is more than it's buildings, and buildings are not the whole of a school. Neither, for example, are the castles of the crusaders the same thing as the crusader knights. And category:fire stations are not the same as Category:firefighting, they are a logical sub category.
- You seem to argue from a "nobody will do the categorisation" point of view. That is an argument that is incorrect, because we are already seeing photos being categorised in subcategories that one would never have thought of years before. Arguing that some, or even many, images will not be categorised except in "Schools" (which I agree will remain the default) is not in fact an argument. Commons can never logically argue that it will be "finished", so the fact that, say, 90% of all given "school building" images will only sit in a "school" category doesn't make the "school building" category any less useful for someone who specifically wants that categorisation data, for the files for which it is available.
- In short, I oppose this argument on two elements:
- "Education buildings" is not a counter-intuitive category at all. In fact, it is very clear what you would sort into it.
- It is helpful added category data, whether it is applied to most, or only some files. Not crucial for most users, but useful for the rest.
- Regards Ingolfson (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a "finished-unfinished" dilemma. It's about the choice between a generally accepted and properly deployed category tree and another category tree, which is practically unknown to "most users". Last week, yours truly uploaded twenty-something photographs of schools. Persuade me (or anyone else willing to tag these pics) that they must (also?) belong to school buildings. NVO (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I understand the flaw in the use of a mixed category and personally don´t mind which way we do it. But I´d like to have it done in one of the ways. As the vast majority of School buildings in Bavaria (my home turf and the subtree in which I try to tag buildings) are categorized under "Schools", I tend to use this system, may it be perfect or not. And if nobody starts yelling within the next few days, I´ll actually start with it, as this discussion hasn´t become very lively in the past eight weeks and doesn´t seem to be concluded soon. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I mostly agree. I noticed the problem when I was working on some categories for Hong Kong. You have for example Category:Buildings in Shau Kei Wan which includes a School buildings category where sombody has placed a couple of schools. Then you have Category:Shau Kei Wan which contains a few more schools which with the current scheme could go in a "Schools in Shau Kei Wan" category. However all of the pictures show buildings, so they really belong under the buildings category. Notice that the problem doesn't arise for hospitals, since Category:Hospitals is a subcategory of Category:Medical buildings. I'm not sure if Category:Education buildings is useful or not, but Category:School buildings isn't, instead Category:Schools should be a subcategory of Category:Education buildings, if the latter is retained (the category zoos makes me wonder, but if it's not a school, it's not really an education building either?).
Most photos of schools show school buildings, exterior or interior, so it's reasonable to make them a subcategory of buildings, even if there are some photos that don't. Categorization is only to make things easier to find, it is never going to be a perfectly logical system. Compare again with other categories like hospitals and hotels where exactly the same issue exists. ghouston (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the subcategories of Category:School buildings are OK however, I'd say School buildings just needs to be renamed to Category:School buildings by type to make it clear that it's not a duplication of Category:Schools, and then Schools needs to be a subcategory of Category:Education buildings, or of Category:Buildings by function. (Perhaps I could also make an argument for making Universities and colleges a subcategory of Education buildings instead of Schools). ghouston (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't see Category:School facilities - that will do, School buildings can be deleted. ghouston (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be dead. Here's another example. Category:Schools in New York is a subcategory of Category:Buildings_in_New_York and of Category:Education in New York. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to make a subcategory Category:School buildings in New York (it's currently just a redirection), and move all the images that show building exteriors or interiors from Schools in New York to this subcategory, and then replace Schools in New York with School buildings in New York as the subcategory of Buildings in New York? Perhaps this is logical, but would it make it easier to find anything? I think not, since if you are looking for images of school buildings, it's already easy to find them under Schools in New York. ghouston (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the discussion does seem to be dead. There is no concensus as to what to do with the category:education buildings and the category:school buildings. --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess that since there was no concensus to remove Education buildings and its subcategories, then they'll have to stay and people can use them as they see fit. The logic of separating buildings is actually fine, it's only the practical utility that I questioned. ghouston (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- For an example of how it can be done in practice, see Category:Schools in Southern District, Hong Kong, which isn't a subcategory of Buildings, but which contains Category:School buildings in Southern District, Hong Kong. It's not too untidy, but each building does need to be categorised twice. ghouston (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
My 2cents. IMHO "University buildings" and "School buildings" are pointless repetitions of "Education buildings". Since "Schools" or "University" is normally referred to the institution rather than to the buildings, still IMHO we could keep "Education buildings" just as mere container of architectural elements of the school or universities. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Possibly, the question is whether buildings like museums, zoos or a government education department are education buildings but not schools. If so, then school buildings isn't a duplicate. University and college buildings are taken as a subcategory of school buildings. --ghouston (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Closing without action, since the discussion is dead and there's no consensus for any particular change. --ghouston (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Not used, no educational value Torin (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Used files, can be collapsed in one main category. --Foroa (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The yellow square is in use. I converted it to a user category, does that seem correct? ghouston (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Closed, preserved as user category. --ghouston (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
There are trade fairs, which on commons are distinct from Conventions, which are distinct from Exhibitions. Some trade fairs are, in fact, annual (or even rarer) trade conventions or exhibitions, it's hard to tell the difference. Others are more like year-round or seasonal shows, some are amusement parks, and some are just good old marketplaces.
The upper-level categories need non-ambiguous definitions in their leads. Should an annual trade show like Category:Moscow International Book Fair belong to Fairs (based on their trademark alone), or to Exhibitions, or to Conventions? NVO (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Trade fairs are just a particular type of exhibition, so anything in that category doesn't need to be in Exhibitions too. Conventions are meetings. All three topics have separate articles in en:wikipedia. If an event has both convention and exhibition characteristics, I guess you can pick the closest match or add it to both. I added descriptions to each category. ghouston (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Nothing to do, reported problem solved by ghouston three years ago. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I propose renaming Category:Same-sex art to either Category:Homosexual art, or perhaps Category:Homosexuals in art, either of which seems like a less clunky name. --Kramer Associates (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Whether or not Category:Same-sex art is renamed, I propose renaming the subcat Category:Gay erotic to a noun form, either Category:Gay erotic art or Category:Gay eroticism to match Category:Lesbian eroticism. If Category:Gay erotic is renamed to Category:Gay erotic art, we might want to consider renaming Category:Lesbian eroticism to Category:Lesbian erotic art to match.
- I intend to empty Category:Homoerotic into applicable categories then delete it, as it seems to duplicate the gendered subcats
--Kramer Associates (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's better to keep this category "Same-sex art", and then to make the categories "Gay erotic art" (better than "Gay eroticism" !) and "Lesbian erotic art" sub-categories of it. --DenghiùComm (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Before we choose a name we should define what exacty it is we want to categorize. Depictions of people who identify themselves as homosexual? Homosexual manifestations (or "acts")? Art targeting a homosexual demography? Perhaps "Homosexuality in art" can cover all three options. Otherwise, I support DenghiùComm suggestions. This was not easy, but of the three alternatives "Same-sex art", "Homosexual art" and "Homosexuals in art" I think "Same-sex art" is the least bad. --Bensin (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because of the arguments from User:Bensin i support DenghiùComm suggestions. Because of this i choose the name Category:Same-sex couples. They can be homosexual, they can be bisexual, they can be heterosexual and posing as same sex couple. So some User mentioned that she know that the left women in File:Lesbian Couple togetherness on Sofa.jpg is heterosexual. But the picture is made at a queer workshop, explicit to have free pictures for lesbian and gay papers. Similar with pictures from the "pre-homosexual historical era". --Fg68at de:Disk 16:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
What about Category:LGBT art ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- [Category:Same-sex art] must be a sub-category of [Category:LGBT art]. It's all right. --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- "LGBT art" can be interpreted as "Art created by LGBT artists", which is in my opinion not on the mark when aiming at a category dedicated to "Art with LGBT-themed content". Orrlingtalk 02:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I just created Category:Homosexual sex in art, I am not sure whether or not this is the same topic matter. I feel "same-sex" is a bit vague. Two men standing together waiting for a bus would be "same sex" art. If the category is to imply more, it should be more descriptive. Etym (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Homosexual sex in art" is fine, as it speaks to actual sex activity which just "Same-sex art"/"homosexuality in art" does not, think it can therfore be a natural subcategory of Homosexuality in art which should in turn collect the content from "same-sex art" and supercede it. Orrlingtalk 01:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Redirected by Orrling in 2013, empty. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Not used, no educational value Torin (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Move it to Category:Unity node:The Unity module is a node. Omkar1234 (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not compliant with wikipedia naming. --Foroa (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmed for w:de:Unity_(ISS), the article uses "Knoten" (node), but also "Modul". Of course commons isn't forced to adopt any (which?) Wikipedia categories, but an intro explaining this terminology detail/error might be good enough. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Kept, but description addd, as per Be..anyone. --rimshottalk 12:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
This category should be located at Category:BRICS as it is a category on the actual organisation made up of the 5 countries. It is separate to Category:BRIC which discusses the concept of the 4 emerging markets russavia (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Commons avoids/forbids acronyms (culture specific), Bric and Brics are names of companies, products and objects, En:BRIC and En:BRICS are different and very easily mixed up, BRICs is often used to denominate the BRIC countries, Category:BRIC countries and Category:BRICS countries are commonly used denominations, why I think that they are currently the best names on Commons. --Foroa (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- BRICS isn't a culture-specific acronym. The political "organisation" is widely known as that. That there are companies, products and objects known as Brics (unshown here) isn't really relevant as the most prominent usage of BRICS is on commons is for BRICS. There is no other demonstrated, or prevalent usage, that would require us to move Category:BRICS to Category:BRICS countries - it is the old KISS principle as far as I can see. russavia (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Closed without action as User:Russavia revoked his request by removing the cfd template from the category page. --Achim (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This cat needs a clarification. Category:Paintings frames (a subcat) seems currently to cover the same. I propsose: move [[Category:Paintings|Frames]], and {{de|Gemälderahmen}} from here to the subcat Category:Paintings_frames since this cat here is apparently not only about paintings frames. A minor addition question: Shouldn't it be the name "Category:Painting frames"? Saibo (Δ) 23:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Improved doc and moved badly named ones. Frames can be for drawings, photos, mirrors in the artistic world. More largely, it can be for windows, constructions, loadspeakers, ... --Foroa (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. Hmm.. yes, sure - there are many objects which are named "frame". However, I would not like to extend this category to all kind of frames (which is meant by your new the English def). That would be a too hard change in my opinion (this cat exists since 2006). I would like to restrict it only to those frames which are Decorative objects (this is another supercat of Category:Frames). Window frames, loudspeaker frames and so on should go to other categories (which shouldn't be subcats of this but of e.g. Category:Frames (physical construction) (or whatever). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to restrict it, then you have to name it Decorative frames, so it will work for drawings, photos, mirrors (not sure you want another name for drawings, photos, mirrors frames). --Foroa (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Decorative frames" sounds good to me but what we use for the category "frames"? As redirect?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 21:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Initially I did not want to rename "frames" to not break many links since this cat is quite old (2006-12-06). But.. okay - we can rename it and make it a subcat of the to-be-created cat "frames". People using the old link will just need to go down to the subcat. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to restrict it, then you have to name it Decorative frames, so it will work for drawings, photos, mirrors (not sure you want another name for drawings, photos, mirrors frames). --Foroa (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. Hmm.. yes, sure - there are many objects which are named "frame". However, I would not like to extend this category to all kind of frames (which is meant by your new the English def). That would be a too hard change in my opinion (this cat exists since 2006). I would like to restrict it only to those frames which are Decorative objects (this is another supercat of Category:Frames). Window frames, loudspeaker frames and so on should go to other categories (which shouldn't be subcats of this but of e.g. Category:Frames (physical construction) (or whatever). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Closed formally, cfd template has already been removed from cat in 2012 due to consense. --Achim (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Merge content to Category:Penis in art (its grandfather via category:Phallus) then delete. Which dick should belong where? Next step, someone well-versed in Greek antiquities please check the structure of category:Phallus. ~ NVO (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Rename to "Human penises in art by degree of rigidity" (a meta category). The criteria for classification between "Flaccid human penis in art" and "Erect human penis in art" should be the same as the criteria for the categories in Category:Human penis by degree of rigidity. I removed Category:Human penis in art from the category Category:Phallus as the enWP article says that a phallus is an erect penis. --Bensin (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- @NVO: Category:Penis in art does have some non-human penises now. Do you still think this category should be deleted, or can we close? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the category tree has changed since the nomination, and there is little interest in deleting at this point. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This category does not meet the project scope of Commons. This category is superfluous because if the year of built of some bus in Jordan is unknown, it is highly, no extremely unlikely that somebody comes here that knows the year of built and fills it in. Think: there are barely good categories like "buses built in 1999" - if it is really true that a bus that is in this category is really built in this year. But if you do not know the year, it is better to leave out a categorisation than using this "unknown"-category. I'd say these "buses built in unknown years" categories are simply useless and i do not think that they transport any ancyclopedic value. 91.57.83.250 11:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia Commons is many categories for files with unknowns elements like: Buses in the United Kingdom with an unknown photography date, Buses in the United Kingdom photographed in unknown locations, Buses in the United Kingdom of unknown use, Buses in the United Kingdom with unknown registration details, Buses in the United Kingdom of unknown operator. This categories will be deleted too? What criterions make differently these categories? Lukas 3z (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it makes no sense to build a Category:Buses in Jordan built by year category tree that contains only unknowns. --Foroa (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- This category is still in working. If it is for you problem, you can find information about buses in Jordan and creating category for many years! Marek Banach (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it makes no sense to build a Category:Buses in Jordan built by year category tree that contains only unknowns. --Foroa (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Discusion is no actual!!! Existing category Buses in Jordan built in 2008. Marek Banach (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion continues at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10/Category:Buses built in unknown years. --ŠJů (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Closing as no consensus, largely because the discussion of this category has been superseded at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10/Category:Buses built in unknown years. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The content is identical to Category:Dyed people. If this category is supposed to help user with wayfinding for people by ethnicity, by descent, etc., then this shuld be a disambig-page. --ZH2010 (Diskussion) 13:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC) ZH2010 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It's a category that contains only subcategories of "[Primary colour] people" - I think it's pretty clearly unrelated to ethnicity/descent. If you want to change all the subcats to "People dyed blue" etc, that's fine, but they are currently not restricted to dyed people. As it stands, "Category:People by colour" is the most accurate description of these subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. So people by colour is the parent category of dyed people. and images and categories in white people can include people dyed white or naturally white? Should then http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_with_black_skin moved to "black people" and "dyed people" into a top-position of people by colour? And if there were more images to come, categories like "people dyed XY" would become subcategories of "Blue people" etc.... --ZH2010 (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know. It seems you just added "White People" to "People by colour." I'm not sure what purpose it served before. I'm not sure that "People with black skin" is a useful category, beyond "People of Black African descent." Personally, I think categorizing people by their natural skin colour instead of ethnicity is bound to be imprecise (not to mention political issues). "White people" after all, are not particularly white, and most "Black people" are more brown than black. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- White people was in the ethnicity-tree before, but it had images of people/faces being white for all sorts of reasons. I also just added Pink people. I think Commons neither should nor wants to categorize people by their natural skin colour, but the cat-names and common language may suggest that Commons does. Can we seperate the discussion about category:people by colour and all the sub-categories: For the parent cat i would withdraw from the delete-proposal, for the sub-categories it could be discussed to have different names (like "Blue-coloured people"...?) but that doesnt bother me. I think "People with black skin" should be deleted if not re-categorised into "People by colour". --ZH2010 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say go ahead and change the sub-category names as you see fit. As long as the names represent the variety of images contained within. - Thanks for brainstorming with me on this! Themightyquill (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- White people was in the ethnicity-tree before, but it had images of people/faces being white for all sorts of reasons. I also just added Pink people. I think Commons neither should nor wants to categorize people by their natural skin colour, but the cat-names and common language may suggest that Commons does. Can we seperate the discussion about category:people by colour and all the sub-categories: For the parent cat i would withdraw from the delete-proposal, for the sub-categories it could be discussed to have different names (like "Blue-coloured people"...?) but that doesnt bother me. I think "People with black skin" should be deleted if not re-categorised into "People by colour". --ZH2010 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
For discussion:
I propose for all the subcategories to be moved to :XY-coloured people. Dont know if thats good English or if that sounds overly politically correct. According to other Category:Categories by color, categories and images should just be related to colours (but not restrictive in the reason for the colour). --ZH2010 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Support --Foroa (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)- Support: Sounds good to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support: I think that is the best idea. Michael Barera (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: Categorizing people by actual skin color is impossible. whats black to one person is light brown to another. "black people" is understood to mean dark skinned people of african descent, with associated physiognomies. There are a few nearly black people, as there are albinos which are white, and the blue-black australian aborigines. all other terms are way too vague: olive, tan, etc. This category should be a disambiguation to dyed people, and people by ethnicity and race, as thats what people are really looking for. PS i found at least 2 images in "people with black skin" who were at best 1/8 african, maybe even just hispanic, or were malay. see, it doesnt work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support i think we should move foreward now. the discussion started nearly 3 years ago. and becasue of misunderstanding with "white" and "black" people it's better to clarify that these categories relate to images of people being coloured (or dyed, painted, including full clothes etc.). These categories do not relate to "native skin colour", "human races" or so. Therefore "XY-coloured people" sounds good. Holger1959 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless of what we do with the category in question, @ZH2010: 's suggestion has broad support. @Mercurywoodrose: was opposed, but seems to have missed the point that these sub-categories are not intended to categorize people by their natural skin colour but rather buy colouring through dyeing, painting, computer effects, or other means. And over the past four years, that seems to be what they have been used for. At any rate, can we at least change the sub-categories, even if we need to leave discussion open on the main category? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've renamed all the sub-categories, though Category:Black people and Category:White people were no longer categories. The former is now a disambig category, without any reference to people painted black. The latter contains images of people of European descent. Category:White people in art contained images of people painted (etc.) white so I've moved that to Category:White-colored people instead. I would suggest that Category:White people be turned into a disambiguation page like Category:Black people - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Themightyquill. Where should the current contents of Category:White people go? If we mirror the black category we would disperse them to Category:Europeans and Category:People of European descent, but I think it makes more sense to move them to Category:Caucasian people.
- Also, I fixed the navigation template for the by-color categories. BMacZero (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've renamed all the sub-categories, though Category:Black people and Category:White people were no longer categories. The former is now a disambig category, without any reference to people painted black. The latter contains images of people of European descent. Category:White people in art contained images of people painted (etc.) white so I've moved that to Category:White-colored people instead. I would suggest that Category:White people be turned into a disambiguation page like Category:Black people - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again for fixing the template, BMacZero. I don't, however, think a move to Category:Caucasian people would be at all helpful. Unlike Category:People of European descent, there is no category tree for it to join. We'd have to create Category:Historical race concepts (matching en:Historical race concepts), as well as Category:Capoid race, Category:Mongoloid race and so forth, not to mention explaining why Commons is adopting highly-disputed 18th-century racial classifications. The only advantage over Category:White would be avoiding confusion with people painted white (etc), but it produces a new confusion with Category:People of the Caucasus. I would hope we wouldn't be categorizing individuals with this category anyway. Most of the images currently in Category:White people are census stats, maps, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill: Those are good points. I'm okay with using Category:Europeans and Category:People of European descent. BMacZero (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Moved contents to Category:People of European descent, and turned Category:White people into a disambiguation page. Closing nearly 5-year-old discussion. Other categories have long-since been moved to "X-colored people". - Themightyquill (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)