Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in September 2017.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/09.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2017-09.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Low quality images of plants

[edit]

Do we really need such category's? We have {{Low quality}} Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged a few similar categories to increase participation in the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't need them. (Especially since I've seen that some of my images have been placed just in there! :-) --E4024 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How {{Low quality}} can help users to select pics in category? The template is useless for users. Kenraiz (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you have consensus to delete if you want, Steinsplitter. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Removed or replaced. I avoided adding any low-ql-template because i found some good photos as well and likely very low ql photos should be deleted. A list of affected files is here just in the case someone wants to look at it. I think you can close the CFD then. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Low photographic quality, while worth being categorized, is not a criteria fo deletion per se. In the case at hand many botanical aspcts that are notable may only have these images to attest them, being therefore in scope regardless of low quality. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a wrong deletion, and I regret I din’t saw this discussion before. Please inform yourselves about the significance of these categories, undelete them, and repopulate (yes, it’s lots of work — but it’s good for the project, and also yiels a lot of admin actions into your edit count!). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: No files have been deleted (I just proposed bad ql files may be deleted if out of scope, but i am not a fan of deleting such files. I saw a number of good one in those category's), just the unneeded category has been removed as per consensus above. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steinsplitter: I also missed this discussion. Can we please undo this? The reason we had this category is that it gets clogged up with images that are of such bad quality that they are impossible to identify. People who periodically look through the unidentified plants cat to identify images then have to scroll past heaps of images again and again because they will never be identified. Amada44  talk to me 16:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amada44: There were multiple category's for identified files, i don't think such tagging is currently allowed. Regarding plants which are impossible to identify, maybe there should be a category for that (impossible to identify). We also can batch add them to the cat if needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steinsplitter: You have just deleted 14 categories without following the procedures of Commons:Categories for discussion based on one person saying that he dosen’t like the category because one of his images was put in them and one person agreeing with that. You did not notify the category creators. Following cats where deleted:
Category:Low quality images of plants
Category:Unidentified plants in India (low quality)
Category:Unidentified plants (low quality)
Category:Unidentified Arecaceae (low quality)
Category:Low quality images of plants
Category:Picea abies (low quality images)
Category:Chelidonium majus (low quality images)
Category:Unidentified plants (low quality)
Category:Tomatoes (Low Quality)
Category:Rhododendron luteum (low quality images)
Category:Portulaca pilosa (low quality)
Category:Erodium cicutarium (low quality images)
Category:Dryas octopetala (low quality images)
Category:Bellis perennis (low quality images)
Category:Unidentified Poaceae (low quality)

Why did you not follow the procedures of Commons:Categories for discussion? I really don’t see a consensus for deleting all those cats especially since you did not notify the creators. Could you undelete the categories and move the images back. In future you should really stick to the procedures of Commons:Categories for discussion. Amada44  talk to me 20:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this don't seems to be uncontroversial, i restored the old status to prevent any kind of disruption & drama. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the categories linked above, many of the images categorizes like this are crisp and high resolution, and therefore I don't think they even qualify as "low quality." - Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. It seems that  Keep. I also see that Category:Images of low quality is massive and probably used a lot--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete There's no need to categorise images by 'low quality'. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Estopedist1: Anything tagged with {{Low quality}} tag automatically goes in Category:Images of low quality. So a low quality image of a plant tagged with that template which is also added to Category:Low quality images of plants will be in Category:Images of low quality and its child category Category:Low quality images of plants. That's obviously redundant and breaks COM:Overcat. I'm not sure what to do about it since I don't have the skill to fix the template. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Yes we ABSOLUTELY do need them. It's much easier to sort them using hot cat rather than tagging each image, and, most importantly it means the unusable images can be moved out of the normal category, where they just clutter things up. These are essential for the big tourist sites, not to mention cats (felids) I suppose. I wush more people set these up and populated them. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete (or move them to a new name not referring to quality). Quality is handled through different processes in Commons, guided by some form of community consensus. With regards to something being "incidental" in an image or not... that is not related to quality, but incidentality (sic). Disclaimer: I've reached this discussion by finding this category in a reasonably usable file (not mine). Strakhov (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we are better off not intersecting low quality images with categorization. What is someone supposed to do in Category:Unidentified plants in India (low quality)? Go up and find another unidentified plant and replace the low-quality image with a higher quality but also unidentified image? For the more useful categories, if I see an image in use that has a low quality tag, I can look into the category (not the parent to find the non-low quality images) and replace the image in use. It seems like categorization for the sake of categorization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Johnbod Юрий Д.К 17:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per above. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as silly. I don't see how moving files from specific categories like Category:Anemone nemorosa (flowers) or Category:Anemone nemorosa (habitat) to a more generic Category:Anemone nemorosa (low quality) is an improvement for users. Also these categories are inherently POV, I expected to find there micro-sized or blurred photos, instead there are 13 MB sized pics, 5,000 × 4,000 pixels pics, photos used in dozens of projects, excellent close-ups and so on. Cavarrone (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep the categories for popular subjects are often overloaded with many blurred or unsharp images with random focus, regardless of the resolution or size. Just look at them in their full size. In such cases finding a reasonable photo to illustrate what you need takes so much time (checking 200-300 images is an easy go). The categories discussed here are not named "low resolution" or "low size". Such images can still be of good quality, if they show the subject, are sharp and informative. This is also not the case for "incidental" categories - they exists for a different reason: to avoid confusion and clearly state what is the main subject and what is not (e.g. people usually don't know all the plant species, so it allows to lower the number of mistakes, which I correct quite often). Maybe there is a better name than "low quality" though. Nova (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nova: Create subcategories of Category:Blurred images? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could work for me and the blurry problem. But, what with the rest of problems mentioned in the low quality template: very small, unfixably too light/dark, or may not adequately illustrate the subject of the image? There would have to be 3-4 different categories instead of one. The Category:Images of low quality is huge, contains a lot of files (~15k) and subcategories, processing them would be challenging. There is also the instruction page Commons:Media for cleanup with info how to cope with low quality images. Changing the approach requires a wider consensus. Nova (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Food by background

[edit]

The subcats should be harmonized to either be "food with ... background" or "food on ... background". I prefer "with" but I think it could use discussion before moving everything. Guanaco (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be better to harmonize them, but I think "on" sounds slightly better. However it's close enough that I suggest we just go with which ever requires less re-categorization. Interestingly, among the other "X by background" categories, there doesn't look to me to be a strong majority. Within this Food category, I see all 6 Apple subcategories use on, along with 3 of the other categories. with has the other 7 categories, giving it a majority of the direct subcats, but a minority when the Apple subcats are counted. Sigh. JesseW (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the two coffee subcategories, Category:Cups of coffee on white background and Category:Coffee cups with transparent background, which should probably get harmonized, too. JesseW (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Guanaco and JesseW: both "on" and "with" are used a lot. Does a native English-speaker (eg user:Auntof6, user:Themightyquill) has a clear preference? I am not native, but my clear preference is "on"--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yes, this is a blast from the past. My view hasn't changed -- either one is fine, let's just pick one and go for it. JesseW (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a discussion that needs to be held for the entirety of the Category:Objects by background subtree at once. It does not make sense to agree on one convention for food and another one for (e.g.) weapons. Propose to close this without changes and start a new one for all subcategories of Category:Objects by background. That might also have the benefit of getting more people involved. --El Grafo (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisiana Superdome

[edit]

Should be merged to Category:Mercedes-Benz Superdome to align with the en-wiki article en:Mercedes-Benz Superdome. There is no substantial difference between the images in the two categories except the time period and the separate categories only adds confusion. It's possible to create _____ by year categories if separation by time period is a necessity.

Renaming the category based on corporate naming rights also follows other NFL stadium categories:

I realize that this is not completely consistent - Category:Cowboys Stadium links to en:AT&T Stadium. I'd be fine with the merge going the other way, but either way, the files should be consolidated into a single category. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree. For the majority of it's existence, the building has been officially the "Louisiana Superdome". It has a temporary marketing deal which began 23 October 2011 for a projected 10 year period into the future; no provision has been made to extend this advertising into the past. (For example to state that the 1988 Republican National Convention took place at the "Mercedes-Benz Superdome" would be a falsehood, since no building of that name existed at the time.) Notes: Within Louisiana outside of commercial sports broadcasting and advertising it is still generally simply known as "The Superdome", as it has been. For an example of the advertising promotion not being used when referring to the building in the time before the marketing deal began, see eg usage at the New Orleans Times-Picayune/Nola com: [1] -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S.: As to "no substantial difference between the images"; the most easily noticeable difference is specifically that large Mercedes-Benz logo and text is on the building during the marketing period. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any real difference between what you describe, and images of the Miami Dolphins' home when it was named Joe Robbie/Dolphin/Pro Player/Sun life being under Category:Hard Rock Stadium? It's the same building in the same location serving the same purpose under a different name. Name of the building doesn't change what's happening in it. With the Superdome, nothing has changed about the stadium structurally. It's the same shape, size and color.
      • Also, how do you feel about a merge going the other way, with Category:Mercedes-Benz Superdome merging and redirecting to Category:Louisiana Superdome? Ytoyoda (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no strong opinion on what the parent category should be. Most of the media we have is from when it was officially the Louisiana Superdome, and if no extended marketing agreement is made that's likely what it will be again. However I acknowledge that "Mercedes-Benz Superdome" is the current official name, and the possibility that over the next few years should that continue the media specifically relevant to when the building was so named is likely to become more numerous. I just feel it inappropriate to recategorize historic media into a name that did not exist at the time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation and Ytoyoda: enwiki article is under the name en:Caesars Superdome (Commons equivalent category:Caesars Superdome). If the previously mentioned Louisiana Superdome and Mercedes-Benz Superdome are the same building, they should be merged into category:Caesars Superdome--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not en:wikipedia. I think Commons has a bit more grounding in history and a bit less frantic eagerness to frequently change things for the sake of recentism. There was no such building as "Caesars Superdome" until July 2021. The vast majority of our media predates that, and it would be dishonest to describe it by a name that did not exist at the time. The permanent legal name of the structure is the "Louisiana Superdome". If all media should be in a single category, that is what the category should be. If we wish to bow to commercial advertising, names of the advertiser should only apply to media from the time when the advertising sponsorship was in effect, so "Caesars Superdome" would be a subcategory for media from late 2021 until whenever the sponsorship expires or the name is changed again. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld

[edit]

Inadmissible German language mishmash category. Should be split into different subcategories! Ies (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There are many subcategories already. The Eichsfeld is a region where religious objects are more evident than in the surrounding areas of Germany. So it would probably help to have such a parent category for all those subcategories, e.g. Religion in the Eichsfeld. imo the category could be renamed rather than split or deleted. --Dehio (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean toward deleting all of these. We don't need to subdivide every building by every historical region. We have Category:Churches in Landkreis Eichsfeld, that's enough. Category:Eichsfeld should be used to categorize files specifically related to that historical region, e.g. maps, crests, etc. Otherwise we end up with a category for nursing homes in Category:Germania Inferior. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Eichsfeld and Landkreis Eichsfeld are not the same area. The Eichsfeld contains most (not all) villages in Landkreis Eichsfeld (in Thuringia), many in Landkreis Göttingen (in Lower saxony), some in Landkreis Northeim (Lower saxony) and Unstrut-Hainich-Kreis (Thuringia) and even one in Weera-Meißner-Kreis (in Hesse) - see also de:Liste der Orte im Eichsfeld.
You can see at once whether you are in an Eichsfeld village or not. Today, not a few hundred years ago. There is a difference at least in religion and in religious architecture. And if you talk to the people, you will as well hear the difference in what they say (though not in their dialect, which is similar to the nearby villages not in the Eichsfeld). You can't see or hear by talking to people whether or not you are in Germania inferior or even in Kingdom of Westphalia, but you can see it in the Eichsfeld. So it's not just a historical region, but also today's reality. In my opinion most of these categories make sense, at least the "religious" categories (wayside shrines, chapels, churches, wayside crosses, monasteries, stations of the cross, pilgrimage sites, grottoes of mary, Maria columns etc.). At the moment I agree with you in case of the "transport"-category, and perhaps the castles and village greens. A "boundary stones"-category makes sense as far as the stones really mark the boundaries of the Eichsfeld and not just Hesse/Prussia or something like that, for example if they show the Wheel of Mainz. --Dehio (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you, Dehio, for trying to explain, even if I'm not totally convinced. "you will as well hear the difference in what they say, though not in their dialect" Then how? I don't understand. I could maybe accept that there would still remain a unique religious culture and religious architecture in the historical region relative to neighbouring regions, particularly for older buildings. But would you really see a difference in architecture if you cross from the Eichsfeld areas of Landkreis Göttingen into the non-Eichsfeld areas of Landkreis Göttingen? And would you notice a difference in Category:Hotels in Eichsfeld‎ and Category:Restaurants in Eichsfeld‎? Are the Category:Information boards in Eichsfeld‎ from the region especially distinct? Is the Category:Geology of Eichsfeld‎ really unique? The Category:Tabacco processing in Eichsfeld‎ <sic> ? Category:Hospitals in Eichsfeld‎ and Category:Nursing homes in Eichsfeld‎ ? I find this rather hard to accept. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where was that Cohiba pic taken? In Germany? --E4024 (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Themightyquill, for your explanation. I do think you're right for most or all of these categories. The difference is mostly in religion and religious culture (including architecture and non-material cultural elements which I meant when I wrote You can hear it by talking to the people). Many people in Eichsfeld have a feeling of special identity, they are proud of belonging to the Eichsfeld. When you're in the next village (out of Eichsfeld) and ask anyone, whether you are still in the Eichsfeld or not, he or she will probably get angry about anyone supposing this village could belong to the Eichsfeld. That's probably why these categories were created and because of that it may be hard to convince anyone living in the Eichsfeld that they should be deleted. For me personally all these categories are helpful, but I do only need the religious categories (and of course the historic ones). But of course you are right: You can't distinguish hotels, restaurants (except that nearly every second hotel or restaurant will have "Eichsfeld" in the name), hospitals, roads or even timber framing in or out of the Eichsfeld. You can just see a different architecture of the churches and as soon as you drive from a non-Eichsfeld village into the Eichsfeld you will see wayside crosses and wayside shrines nearly on every high hill, and under every green tree.
This tobacco image is strange. I know there was a lot of tobacco planting in Eichsfeld and there were some cigar manufacturers. A lot of the tobacco consumed in the region came from the Eichsfeld and some nearby villages (e.g. Unterrieden, not in the Eichsfeld) up to the middle of the 20th century. But I'm not yet convinced this photo was taken in Eichsfeld or even in Germany. Cohiba? In Germany? There's something wrong, I reckon. --Dehio (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose "Sorry, dass ich hier deutsch schreibe, meine Englischkenntnisse sind nicht so gut. Ich bin selbst Eichsfelder und versuche mal zu erklären, warum die Erhaltung der (meisten) Kategorien sinnvoll ist. Das Eichsfeld ist eben nicht nur ein historisches Gebiet (als "Eichsfelder Staat" bis 1802), sondern noch heute fühlen sich die meisten Menschen in genau den Grenzen von 1802 als "Eichsfelder" und erst in zweiter Hinsicht als Thüringer oder Niedersachsen. Auf der anderen Seite der Eichsfeldgrenze sagen die Menschen mit der gleichen Deutlichkeit, das sie keine Eichsfelder sind. Die Ursachen liegen in der unterschiedlichen religiösen Ausprägung und Geschichte (das Eichsfeld ist überwiegend katholisch und die Nachbarregionen evangelisch), die sich bis heute erhalten hat. Der Landkreis Eichsfeld umfaßt zwar große Teile des Eichsfeldes, ist aber nicht identisch mit dem Eichsfeld. Während das Eichsfeld als Region geographisch, kulturell seit Jahrhunderten konstant bleibt, ändern sich die Verwaltungsstrukturen ständig (Landkreis Duderstadt und Landkreis Gottingen in Niedersachsen; Landkreise Heiligenstadt/Worbis/Mühlhausen, Kreise Heiligenstadt/Worbis, Landkreis Eichsfeld und so weiter in Thüringen. Auch in Veröffentlichungen und in Büchern zu verschiedenen Themen (wie Religion, Kirche, Geschichte aber auch Geographie, Geologie, Schienenverkehr, Tourismus und andere) ist immer vom "Eichsfeld" die Rede und nicht vom "Landkreis Eichsfeld". Auch wenn es keine spezifisch eichsfeldische Architektur gibt, so gibt es aber doch bei vielen Kirchen im Eichsfeld [File:Kirche in Zella (Anrode).JPG] und im benachbarten Thhüringen [File:Dachrieden Kirche.JPG] deutliche Unterschiede. Sicher kann man über den Nutzen einiger Commons-Kategorien (zum Beispiel Category:Nursing homes in Eichsfeld) streiten und gegebenfalls auch entfernen, die meisten Kategorien sollten aber erhalten bleiben. Das man die Namen der Kategorien auf die englischen Versionen vereinheitlichen will ist wohl nicht zu verhindern, obwohl es bestimmt noch genug (deutsche) Internetnutzer gibt, die keine besonderen Sprachkenntnisse haben.--79.214er (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If absolutely necessary, translation into English version is all right.--79.214er (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Themightyquill: I translated all remaining categories, except two tough ones: Category:Warten im Eichsfeld and Category:Kirmes im Eichsfeld. Can any German user (eg @Achim55, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Túrelio, and DerHexer: ) could help here? If no easy translations for these two categories. Then just to be renamed to "Warten in Eichsfeld" and "Kirmes in Eichsfeld"--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estopedist1, I added a short desc to Category:Warte, don't know if there is a suitable word in English language. Watchtowers might perhaps fit. --Achim55 (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 and Achim55: To your questions above:
1. Category:Warten im Eichsfeld can be moved to Category:Watch towers in Eichsfeld with leaving a redirect, for exampe Category:Warte in Baden-Württemberg is a redirect to Category:Watch towers in Baden-Württemberg
2. Category:Kirmes im Eichsfeld can be moved to Category:Funfairs in Eichsfeld with leaving a redirect.
Greets Triplec85 (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zur Kategorie Warten: Ich antworte mal in Deutsch: Die "Warte" bezeichnet einen mittelalterlichen Beobachtungsturm, während die Kategorie "Watch towers" verschiedene Arten von Beobachtungstürmen beschreibt (mittelalterliche Warten, Grenztürme, KZ-Türme, Wildbeobachtungstürme usw.) Deshalb sollte man die Kategorie "Warte" beibehalten und passenden übergeordneten Kategorien zuordnen.-Wilkosense (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: Warte should stay as specific name but funfair for Kirmes seems okay with me. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Things named after grand

[edit]

There is no thing called "Grand" that things get named after. Grand just means "big". We could either delete this category or rename it to "Things named 'Grand'". Auntof6 (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It's my understanding that we don't group things by their common name unless they are named specifically after someone or some thing. The only exception seems to be for colours (though I'm not sure why). If we want a disambiguation page at Category:Grand, that's fine. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That hasn't been my observation, Themightyquill. See Category:Hotels by name for some examples. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ughh.. you seem to be right. Category:Streets by name. I still think it's a bad idea, but I guess I can't claim precedent. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: So, Category:Things named Grand ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would work. Looking at what we have right now, the only other "Things named <foo>" categories we have are things named with a color (for example, Category:Things named black). If we don't mind opening the door to many more of these categories, then "Things named grand" (or Grand) would work. I would foresee an onslaught of new categories to follow the pattern, which may or may not be a problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete we probable don't want to open doors for "Things named <foo>"--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC) delete for this specific category, because there are thousands and thousands of categories with the name part "grand". In general, "Things named <foo>" is acceptable--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minster, Thanet / Category:Minster in Thanet

[edit]

Is there a maintainable distinction between these two categories?

I think one (Category:Minster in Thanet) is intended for the village, the other (Category:Minster, Thanet) for the wider civil parish that takes its name from the village. But each seems to have views of "Marsh Farm Road", or views taken near the pumping station.

I'm wary about merging them, in case people think that there is a distinction that can be systematically maintained. I don't want to destroy information, if an attempt has been made to separate the two.

Also I don't know much about any automated tools that may be at work, eg categorising incoming Geograph images or Wiki Loves Monuments images -- do these tools have an idea of where the boundary of the village is, to classify images based on their coordinates? Or only the boundary of the civil parish? (Pinging @Fae: - do you know about these?)

But it would be useful to have input on this, eg to know whether there is one category or two categories that should be targeted from Wikidata.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jheald: back in 2009 I generated all the missing categories for villages because I was uploading the Geograph images. I see in the edit summary that Category:Minster, Thanet was created based on en:Minster, Thanet. I would just merge the two, probably the best name is Category:Minster-in-Thanet. Multichill (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they can't be merged, they should be disambiguated to Category:Minster, Thanet (village) and Category:Minster, Thanet (parish) or something like that. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Multichill. Out of interest, though, how are incoming WLM or Geograph images placed into appropriate (eg civil-parish level) categories at the moment?
Is there a matching based on name? Or to a Wikidata item, then going up the administrative levels until there's one with a Commons category (if the momument itself doesn't have a category)? Or is the WLM's parish held in an offsite database, with a note of the Commons category?
Just quite curious. Jheald (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'd recommend merging the two categories. Even if one is meant to mean the parish, and the other the village - the similar names mean that distinction cannot be drawn.
If separate categories are desired, I would recommend that the village is left at Minster-in-Thanet and the parish is disambiguated with "civil parish". Civil parish should be used instead of parish as that is the formal name, and there are other types of parish that may have different boundaries.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nilfanion: @Multichill: @Jheald: @Fae:
I back the separate cats idea if enough pics are available. We are in places tending to separate a settlement from the civil parish that derives from that settlement's name. There is not much of a problem if there are few photos that apply to the settlement and the civil parish. However, settlements might be quite small and their civil parishes may within them contain further settlements, such as hamlets, estates, large farms, major roads and woods etc. which cannot be seen as part of a particular 'village' or 'town' However it is often difficult to define the boundary of a settlement that gives the parish its name i.e. at what point does the settlement become the parish, as Jheald queries. Some links through Google do provide this boundary, and if not we could make a reasonable stab at it. As for defining sub-cats as (village) and (civil parish) as Themightyquill postulates, I did try exactly this with some parishes/settlements, but (village) was considered inappropriate as Wikipedia predominates the settlement as a village in the first line of a lede, and subordinates the parish. I suggest in this case we could keep 'Minster in Thanet' as the settlement and change Minster, Thanet to 'Minster in Thanet (civil parish)', as Nilfanion suggests, as there are over 300 files between them, and places such as 'Richborough Power Station', which is miles away from the parish village could go to the civil parish. I have broken down Category:Broadstairs with its parish Category:Broadstairs and St Peters in this way. Category:High Roding shows how a small number of files doesn't require a split, and Category:Great Waltham (civil parish) where the split seemed necessary. Acabashi (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Acabashi: No objection at all from me to separate cats, if you can clearly distinguish what should be in each one. (Which would have needed quite a lot of sorting out for Minster in Thanet, at least when I looked at it). One request though, if you're splitting the categories here, please also split the corresponding items on Wikidata (or see if there's an existing item for the village, via 'What links here'), so that both the Commons categories remain well-connected, and eg can have infoboxes, and inbound links that work. Up to you to judge which item is more suitable to link to en-wiki -- sometimes it would be the civil parish, probably more often it would be the settlement, depending on the balance of content in the article. Other properties on the Wikidata item probably divide pretty clearly into which ones should stay with the parish, and which ones with the settlement. Jheald (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Jheald, Acabashi, and Nilfanion: I guess we have similar cases in Commons, do we? Without knowing the similar cases, I can propose possible distinction like Category:Minster (village in Kent) and Category:Minster (civil parish in Kent); disambiguation qualifiers "(village)" and "(civil parish)" can be also possible, but seems not self-explaining--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fascist architecture

[edit]

I have strong doubts about the encyclopedic value of this category, as per se there is no such thing as "fascist architecture". During the Italian fascism, in fact (as even Wikipedia explains) there were various styles, such as the rationalist, futurist and the monumentalist schools. This category brings together whatever was built during the 20s-30s in Italy and in its colonies, considering it all "fascist architecture" just because they were built under the same authoritarian regime. The Italian Wikipedia, in fact, has not an article called "Fascist architecture" but rather a section called "architecture during the fascist period" under the article "Italian architecture in the 20th century". I suggest its deprecation or even deletion, including its subcategories. Desyman (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While there is an English wikipedia article at en:Fascist architecture, admittedly, it isn't very strong. Isn't there a case to bring together some of these works with related ideological connections, somehow? Yes, its worth organizing things simply by date, but this type of category could specify something more than that. We have Category:Art approved by the Nazi regime so maybe something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Themightyquill. In my view it would be better to be consistent with existing practices, namely to categorize by date and by style. The date is already there, Category:20th-century architecture with all its subcategories, while for the style we have Category:Futurist architecture, Category:Rationalist architecture (with their subcategories), etc. To me this is sufficient. It is a dangerous enterprise to classify architectures by political ideology, if anything at least because under fascism for instance rationalist was very common in the beginning, but then rationalist architects fell in disgrace, at the advantage of more "monumentalist" ones, who corresponded more to the ideology of the ruling regime. Thus the link between the two is in my view superficial and in a number of cases even false.--Desyman (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Desyman: Just to be clear, do you feel the same way about socialist and Nazi architecture? As I said, I certainly accept that not all architecture created during fascism was ideologically motivated, but as you yourself said, some of the more monumentalist architects did connect with the ideology of the ruling regime. Does Category:Welthauptstadt Germania really not deserve a Nazi-related parent category? Just Category:Neoclassical architecture in Berlin and maybe Category:Berlin 1919-1945 ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. I think architecture, like any form of art (applied in this case) always and necessarily reflects and dialogues with the society and also political reality of its time. The issue is that there is not a sufficiently precise overlap to categorize all rationalist architecture in Italy as fascist, nor all architecture produced during fascism as rationalist. The same can be said - mutatis mutandis - for any other political regime. One would not call contemporary architecture in north America as "capitalist architecture" for instance. One may however envisage a category such as "Architecture in country X during the given period/regime" to underscore that, while there is a temporal coincidence, there is not necessarily an ideological linkage. I believe this could be a compromise solution, although I personally tend to lean towards the deprecation altogether. What do you think?--Desyman (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Desyman: I don't know enough about Fascist Italy so my opinion should come with a grain of salt, but I imagine that architecture, like all art, can take on an explicitly ideological propagandist purpose, particularly when created at the bequest of an explicitly ideological state (and even more so when, owing to a dictatorship, the ideology is clearly defined.) Where to draw the line between state propaganda in art/architecture and other art/architecture produced at the same time? I don't have a clear answer, so I guess we'd have to depend on scholars of art/architecture for that, like any other subject. We might include works consciously celebrated as ideological by the regime in question.
But if your intent is to avoid unfairly lumping in all rationalist architecture produced in Italy during fascism as inherently fascist architecture, then I don't think Category:Architecture in Italy during Fascism even serves your purpose. It would be better to have both Category:1930s architecture in Italy and 40s (for everything) and a well-maintained Category:Fascist architecture for those consciously fascist buildings, if they exist. If there are really no examples of architecture serving as Italian fascist propaganda (the en:Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, for example?), then delete the category entirely. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the solution that you suggest is that in many many cases there is no objective way to ascertain whether a building was "consiously" fascist. How do you do so? By checking whether the architect was member of the party? At the time almost everyone did. By checking who paid for it? Most times this information is lost and may per se not be 100% representative. I therefore believe that a more objective categorization such as: Category:1930s architecture in Italy (and '20s, and '40s) plus Category:Rationalist architecture in Italy (and equivalent for other styles), as well as Category:Architecture in Italy during Fascism can indeed be the best option, as these categories lend themselves to less arbitrariness and "ideological celebration", the criteria for categorization are much more objective. In practice, this could be done by simply renaming the category Category:Fascist architecture with relatively little work.--Desyman (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some literature: http://www.ibtauris.com/Books/Humanities/History/Fascist%20Modernism%20The%20Arts%20Under%20Dictatorship?menuitem={DFF51E2F-C0BA-4928-ACC4-415188DCDEE8} --Alex1011 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. Enwiki has also Category:Fascist architecture and main article en:Fascist architecture. Terminological questions should be asked in enwiki, not in Commons--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ford trucks V8

[edit]

this category only contained photos of the 1953 F-100 truck, so it's unneeded. Sascha GPD (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sascha GPD: Any objections to delete this "funny" category. The category consists of two images (File:Abandoned car in Bodie.jpg and File:This is an old truck i saw in a junk yard in Green River Utah I like the Layers of paint on these old trucks . Nice Headlights - panoramio.jpg), maybe neither of them are not Ford F-100 (1953)--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2002.

Superseded by new cat conforming with similar for all other monarchs : Category:Coats of arms of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth keeping the redirect, since the norm is to omit "Queen", as with the parent category. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This now conforms with other peer categories for Royal coats of arms, but no longer matches with parent category Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Long ago, I started a discussion about standardizing the use of titles and honorifics but it didn't get anywhere. @Lobsterthermidor: Generally, it's best to propose for discussion before moving. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, should match others in Category:Royal arms of England by monarch. There are also royal dukes, etc, makes it very messy if title not given. I don't see the advantage of not stating the title, we give it for peers, i.e. barons, dukes, etc.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comissão de Assuntos Sociais (Senado Federal do Brasil)

[edit]

Why do we write the name of a parliamentary commission in Portuguese? E4024 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Because it is its name and we do not make ad hoc translations, per "Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form" in Commons:Categories#Category_names. Tm (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Well, at least I imagined that it was Portuguese. I hope other people will also understand those names. I sometimes open a category for a Turkish dish in Turkish, but, for example, I write Category:Mercimek soup and not "Mercimek çorbası". In the case of the cat on "katıklı ekmek" I opened it as Category:Katikli ekmek so as not to confuse people with a small "i" without a dot (ı)... Well, I cannot agree with everything as everybody does not agree with me. Have a good day. --E4024 (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category with such an name schould always at least have an english decription which tells what the category is for. In Portugues I could only guess what it means. --Kersti (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Tuvalkin and Kersti Nebelsiek: The noominated category fits well into the parent Category:Permanent parliamentary committees of the Senado Federal do Brasil. However, I guess that the disambiguator qualifier should be translated (ie Brazilian Senate, or Federal Senate of Brazil), but this is for another category-for-discussion. We can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Normandy

[edit]

Difference to Category: Coats of arms of Normandie is fully unclear (same creator). -- User: Perhelion 11:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Région Normandie vs Category:Normandy. A ridiculous amount of overlap for 99% of sub-categories and content. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is clear because of confusion and Coats of arms ais all about history (even before the region was recently created only in 2016). All modern French regions now use "Normandie" (not Normandy" hich remains larger and not strictly limited to France.
There a clear separation of subcategories to avoid mixing Channel islands for the region in France. No nvgation issue at all but in some cases there are overlap for coats of arms that are not only for France. There's always been a confusion about what "Normandy" was refering too, and we've seen contents categorized in France when they were in Jersey or Guernsey only. There's no easy way to distinguish both, except using the official French name when it refers to the French region.
Don't merge these categories, you'll put contents that will become parts of France when they are not. And we passed a long time to distinguish France, Jersey and Guernsey. verdy_p (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Verdy p: It should be clear that this needs an absolute clear and prominent description to both Cats. This situation is absolute hilarious. -- User: Perhelion 08:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not hilarious but there was still no clear way tro distinguish the names, except by language (for the official name of the new region). Nothing was decided on adding a prefix "Réagion Normandie" in France, for now. But Normandy has always been a larger area. Up to 2015 there was two distinct adminsitraive french regions that merged in 2016, and they were both subcategories in "Normandy", alog with the former "Channel islands" (then separated into Jersey and Guernsey). This broader category corretly refers to the 3 administrative units as subcategories and no confusion is possible. Coats of arms are all refering to the former area for centuries before 2016 (and no coats of arms in French Normandie have any legal status in the region even if some municipalities (or groups of cooperating municipalities) use them for their communication and culture, or display them on street plates or municipal bulletins or tourism office sites. verdy_p (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For lost tourists with poor GPS reception, coats of arms on street plates could be very relevant. :)   — Jeff G. ツ 03:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, Category:Normandy should either be a disambiguation, or should only contain content specifically related to history. There's no need for all these sub-categories (Culture, Cuisine, Sports, Clocks, Squares, etc) that simply subidivide into either Normandie or the Channel Islands. Category:Normandy might be renamed Category:Normandy (historical region) to make this more obvious. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/09&oldid=890155363"