Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2012/07

This category is no different from Category:Apartment buildings in the United States, one of its parents; it should be merged into the parent category. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that Apartment buildings would be for complete buildings with several apartments, whereas Apartments would be for single apartments? --El Grafo (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest creating a category "Apartment interiors in the United States" and redirecting "Apartments in the United States" to "Apartment buildings in the United States". Ghouston (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing exists at the parent level, Category:Apartments and Category:Apartment buildings. Ghouston (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and we also have Category:Apartment blocks. I'll see what I can do with it. Ghouston (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Apartment interiors and Category:Apartment building common areas and mostly eliminated Category:Apartments and Category:Apartment blocks. It seems I can't touch Category:Apartments in the United States itself while this discussion is ongoing. Ghouston (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has disagreed with me, and nobody has complained about Category:Apartment interiors, I'm going to close this discussion and replace this category with Category:Apartment interiors in the United States. Ghouston (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked and useless (all files are already sorted into more specific categories, e.g. Category:Military rank insignia of Hungary --Torsch (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's the problem with this category? I made it for my images. I have more than 1600 pictures and i want to sort them. Please don't modify i need it. Madboy74 (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above comment from Madboy74 transcribed from his user talkpage. AusTerrapin (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Rank collection to Category:Ranks by Madboy74

Rename Category:Insignia collection to Category:Insignia by Madboy74

Rename Category:Hungarian coat of arms to Category:Coat of arms of Hungary by Madboy74

Rename Category:Romanian coat of arms to Category:Coat of arms of Romania by Madboy74

Rename Category:Slovakian coat of arms to Category:Coat of arms of Slovakia by Madboy74

The above categories were established by the editor for the purpose of grouping an extensive list of his files. The problem is that they don't currently comply with COM:USER. The editor has enough files to justify user sub-categories but they need to be brought in line with COM:USER. My suggested names for coat of arms categories standardises the topic title with the existing Commons schema for coats of arms. AusTerrapin (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with AusTerrapin. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to more suitably named user categories under Category:Pictures by Madboy74. --rimshot^talk 21:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Created by me before noticing that Category:Tram rail track construction already exists. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted. --rimshot^talk 22:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aborted synonym for Category:Icons for railway descriptions/parallel railways/junction/over road. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted. --rimshot^talk 22:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

replaced with "Category:Horse trams in Paris", to match all other such categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So what requires discussion? - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed to "Koel Mullick" per w:Koel Mullick Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 07:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Convenience link: Category:Koel Mullick - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears to have been done. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, bad name. --rimshot^talk 21:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte löschen ist doppelt carsten krüger (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want this category deleted, because it has been replaced by a userpage, that ist better suited for the purpose. ArishG (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as per author request. --rimshot^talk 06:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no purpose Cqdx (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete
  Français : Catégorie créé tout simplement pour la réaction de Cqdx. Cqdx est invité à travailler en bonne intelligence en rajoutant simplement son travail sans jamais révoquer le travail des autres. Et de contacter le contributeur d’un travail pour lui proposé de modifier son travail et puis d’attendre qu’il rentre de vacances.
  English: Category created simply for the reaction of Cqdx. Cqdx is invited to work in good terms by adding simple are work without ever revoking(dismissing) the work of the others. And to contact the contributor of a work for him suggested modifying are work and then to wait that he(it) returns of holidays.
  --F1jmm (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Please don't create silly categories with no purpose other than to provoke reaction from other Wikimedians. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete: Intentionally frivolous category by the creator's own admission — see User talk:F1jmm#Category:Nobody listening to a radio receiver. (F1jmm's response, translated into English: "Yes, I put people listening to the radio in Category:SWL and this was a problem for Cqdx, so I created another category of radio listeners simply to see the reaction from Cqdx.") New pages attract the attention of reviewers and other editors, and creating fake pages wastes the time of other innocent people who were not participating in the argument that lead to it. (I don't know why an experienced user would think this was a good idea; I think that F1jmm has been around long enough to be familiar with en:WP:POINT/fr:WP:POINT if not COM:POINT.) --Closeapple (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello
  http://www.reverso.net/text_translation.aspx?lang=FR , Personne écoutant un récepteur radio = Nobody listening to a radio receiver.
  Category:SWL (Universal); Category:SOS (Universal) ; Category:YL (radio) (Universal). --F1jmm (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?! That is not "Nobody listening to a radio receiver". That is the opposite: more like "Person listening to a radio receiver". (Maybe Category:People with radios or Category:People listening to radios would be a good category, though.) --Closeapple (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "ne personne" = "nobody", "une personne" = "somebody" --Cqdx (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. --Closeapple (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We obviously mean "somebody". --Cqdx (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is now Category:People listening to radios. --Cqdx (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Sreejithk2000. -- Common Good (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A empty category probably needs to be deleted. Froztbyte (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Empty category. -- Common Good (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category created in 2010 that doesn't seem to be needed. Auntof6 (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Should be deleted. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 21:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax, see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakynese language. Also delete subcategories on Katetakana, Komye and Sutagana. TenPoundHammer (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, All Chakynese uploads deleted as hoax (out of scope) by User:Sven Manguard. Rd232 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Street is a popular name for streets. Dozens of US cities have a Cherry Street. Currently Category:Cherry Street just contains images of Hong Kong's Cherry Street, plus some images put there by mistake. I suggest, just as there are disambiguated Category:Cherry Street, Toronto, Category:Cherry Street, Seattle, Category:Cherry Street (Philadelphia) there should be a disambiguated Category:Cherry Street (Hong Kong). Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That happens all the time, even with Main Street, Main Road, Church Street, King Street ... Just stick a {{Move|Cherry Street, Hong Kong|Disambiguation}} on it. --Foroa (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Cherry Street, Hong Kong. --rimshot^talk 21:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

improper category name, not English nor French Cqdx (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be at Category:Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly. No need for the parent category in the title. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, bad name. --rimshot^talk 21:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. There is already a categroy with appropriate subcategroies: Category:Color inversion McZusatz (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I moved this category to Category:Negative images to be inverted. --McZusatz (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted. --Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. But I think that Category:Negative images to be inverted should not have been deleted. --McZusatz (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not used any longer Li3939108 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 21:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to delete, see Category:Kloster Steinfeld GFreihalter (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Kloster Steinfeld. --rimshot^talk 21:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Group photographs of association football teams in the United States. Froztbyte (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Group photographs of association football teams in the United States. --rimshot^talk 21:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Category:Association football clubs of Mauritania Froztbyte (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Association football clubs of Mauritania. --rimshot^talk 22:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We had a long discussion about the eras being out to lunch. We created proper categories, moved all the files, and now this one can go anytime. See talk page for details.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, as per Category talk:Ice age. --rimshot^talk 22:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the other glacial one. Should we keep all the discussion there? --Canoe1967 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, as per Category talk:Ice age. --rimshot^talk 22:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete misspelled empty category Bensin (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 22:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 22:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 22:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 22:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Dutt is an Indian film star, plitician who was sentenced to 6 years in prison for possessing arms in 1993 Bombay bombings case (according to Wikipedia article.) This issue is still in court and very controversial. But, if we see Category:1993 Bombay bombings, all photos are of Sanjay Dutt and not a single photo is related to (or depicts) 1993 Bomb blast (or Dutt's relation to that bomb blast)– all images are Dutt's party attending, film ceremony attending etc. I can understand these images are added in the main category Category:Sanjay Dutt, but in this bomb blast category these irrelevant images (and only these irrelevant images) are very misleading and inappropriate! Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, out of scope. The category existed only to associate a person with an event, a purpose which a Wikipedia article can fulfil much better. Might be recreated once there are media directly associated with this event. --rimshot^talk 09:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Wikimedia photography workshops. In terms of classification Wikimedia would be more appropriate than Wikipedia. Peter Weis (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Wikimedia photography workshops. --rimshot^talk 09:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect name: there are 4 lenses with similar names, so it's important to be correct Maksim Sidorov 15:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Taken with Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 II APO EX DG Macro HSM. --rimshot^talk 09:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name - It matters not what the genus name is, these are beavers and that is what the category should be called. No English speaking person will search for "castors" when they are looking for beavers. Kiltpin (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Foroa (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 19:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name - It should be Animals in Heraldry, not pets. Kiltpin (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the name is wrong and should be replaced with Domestic animals. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds better. Can we compromise on domesticated? As in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_animals .Kiltpin (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you're right - Category:Domesticated animals is the precise name. I'm far from being familiar with all subtleties of English language... :) --Miaow Miaow (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, domesticated animals in heraldry is ok. The categorie should -- only if possible -- following the german (or other) "Wappenbilderordnung" (symbolorum armorialium ordo): Haustiere, Code: 5400-5999). --Arthur Diebold (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to me like a consensus to move to Category:Domesticated animals in heraldry. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Domesticated animals in heraldry, as per consensus. --rimshot^talk 22:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name - No one will ever search for wisent! These are bison and should be in that category. Kiltpin (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The matter is quite opposite - most of them come from Europe and represent European towns and families, therefore the depicted animals are wisents (Bison bonasus), not bisons (Bison bison). For example the legend about ancestor of Pernštejn family narrates of a wisent, not of a bison from North America (an animal described many centuries later and unknown to medieval European heraldry). And what is more - many of those animals are canting figures for Slavic placenames beginning with Zubr-... :) Commons are for all languages and certainly some of them make clear distinction between those two species. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no reply to a reasonable objection. --rimshot^talk 22:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be a separate category? Tadpoles will become frogs, so could they not be both in a category Frogs and tadpoles in heraldry. Kiltpin (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image of tadpole certainly looks differentkly from an image of frog. :) The iconography is different and blason certainly does not contain the word frog if talking about tadpole. Tadpoles should be a subcategory under Frogs, that seems quite simple solution for me. No need for merger. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as if there are hundreds and thousands. There is no need for a separate category. They could all be in the category 'Frogs and Tadpoles'. Kiltpin (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why the push for merger of other categories on grounds of an image looking identical (goats/ibexes)? :)) If somewhere a tadpole is depicted instead of frog, there must be a profound reason behind. Therefore I see no benefit of complete frogs/tadpoles merger. Anyway, if some figure is so rare, the stronger reason for having a category of its own. As a subcat. within Frogs Tadpoles will be perfectly OK - juat replace Animals with Frogs. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Different appearance. We have a different Category:Tadpoles for the larval form of frog already. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, as the discussion showed, tadpoles and frogs have quite different appearences. --rimshot^talk 22:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep have wool, not fur. This should be renamed to Category:Sheepskins Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably right. It is named the same way (nearly) all other haired skins are named, see Category:Furs by species. --Kürschner (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason, technical, encyclopedic or usability, why category members need to be named with rigid consistency, if this is against the actual use of the term. Would you also suggest replacing sheep by "sheeps" as a plural, because that would then be consistent with with dogs and cats? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I am not a native English speaker, I only can guess the right use of terms. The idea behind is, to differentiate between fur and leather, skin with hair aund without hair. --Kürschner (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with move, disagree with rationale. "Sheepskins" is definitely a more common word to describe what's in the category. However, I believe "sheep have wool, not fur" is a misunderstanding of the difference between wool and fur. Fur is simply skin with hair (sometimes called the hair is called wool, or confusingly, fur), taken off the animal. If you remove the skin from a sheep but keep the wool on the skin, what you have may also be described as "fur". Deryck Chan (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can a bot rename all files when we rename the category? --Kürschner (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think once you replace a category description with {{Category redirect}}, some bot will empty its content into the new category automatically. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, this makes a redirect, not replaces?! --Kürschner (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See User:RussBot. Deryck Chan (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand, thank you! --Kürschner (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a technical difference between wool and fur, in that the hairs of a wool pelt are intertwined such that they can't be combed smooth, as a fur pelt can. Thus skinning a sheep gives a pelt, but not a fur.

There are sheep fur-skins, but they are obscure: astrakhan is the pelt of a baby (or unborn) lamb. At this age, and not later, the sheep's pelt could be described as a fur.Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the term for the skin of a premature birth astrakhan lamb is broadtail or breitschwanz. - The problem seems to me to find the right general commercial term in the English speaking fur branch for sheepskins. In Germany all sheepskins which will be worked to garment are called lamb (lambskin), excluding very rustic skins, like for shepherd coats. Nevertheless the upper term sheepskins would be right. I think, "sheepskins" and "sheepskin (clothing)" should be ok? --Kürschner (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done as proposed --Kürschner (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Sheepskins. --rimshot^talk 23:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear exactly what this category is for, since it blanket includes in use images and legitimate sub-categories - an explanation from the creator would be appreciated. As it stands this has been created as a user category (although many of the uploads it contains weren't created by the categories' author), and therefore goes against COM:USERCAT which states that "Categories shouldn't be created to collect files based on the opinion of any user (e.g. "User:Example's favourite pictures")." CT Cooper · talk 18:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"User:Example's favourite pictures" is exactly what this category is not about. It really does collect old and orphaned rough sketches. They have been uploaded as sketches portraying the borders of municipalities within (country) districts (Landkreise) in Germany. Due to area reforms (mergers of municipalities), they have become outdated. As everyone knows, history is not less relevant for Commons as the present state. However, there have been and there still are so many mergers of municipalities that it doesn't make sense to show every state of municipal boundaries in time possible. If there are 150 municipalities within a district and within 5 years there are 70 mergers you would have to upload 70 maps for each municipality for each situation on one special date – 10,500 maps totally. These files have originally been intended by the author (user:Rauenstein is the author of all these maps, other users have only copied the template) as sketches, not as maps. Their only purpose is to be integrated into the articles of municipalities on de.wikipedia and to be viewed there. There is simply no one being able to maintain all these maps (their infoboxes, categories and so on). There are certain cases where files should be deleted if they are of no current value any more. These sketches are the time of day or the state of the water-level of municipality borders. The category's purpose is to collect these files so that they can eventually be deleted or at least be recognized as being outdated. As you can see, the description pages of all these files have not been updated since the merger of the municipalities so that they would not contain any true information anyway. It is a matter of weighing up all these factors, and I think the result is that these files should be deleted and the category helps on the way to do this.--Leit (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that these are not accurate for any time (in which case they should probably just be deleted, or certainly tagged with {{Disputed}}) or that they need to be classified in terms of what time they reflect, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are accurate for some specific, but only arbitrarily time. You see, that these files became updated several times but the "old" versions could and still can only be looked at in the file history. And you are right: They need (or rather would need) to be classified in terms of what time they reflect. The point is: These maps do only reflect the location of one municipality within a district. But it is sufficient that only one other municipality in this district changes its borders – the locator maps of all other municipalities have to be updated as well even if their borders haven't changed at all. Therefore it is not neccessary to store all these maps because they do not contain any specific information on the municipality itself. In terms of showing the territorial/border history it is of course neccessary or right to draw a map of the whole district (without one municipality being highlighted). These maps (for instance: File:Uebersicht-SL.png) should not be deleted even if they are "old".--Leit (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, firstly I'm removing the user category from this category as per COM:USERCAT, user categories should not interact with general ones, and the sub-categories have general titles and should be part of the main category tree, not a user sub-category (even if all files in it happen to be by one user) - it is a requirement that all files be in at least one category, with user categories not counting towards this. I have difficulty following why this category blanket includes all uploads depicting, for example, Landkreis Demmin. Yes, perhaps at the moment all the images in there are old, wrong, or orphaned - but future uploads may not be. A category such as this should really contain just files, not other categories. Even if Landkreis Demmin no longer exists, I doubt all images depicting it should be deleted.

In any case, why doesn't an appropriate person just start a mass DR, or a set of them, on these files if they want them deleted? Why the delay? CT Cooper · talk 21:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rauenstein is currently inactive. Some users shy away from the deletion procedure because they are not familiar with it.--Leit (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't surprise me. I could file the nomination if that is thought be helpful, although at present it would be as a procedural "neutral" nomination. CT Cooper · talk 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rauenstein (talk · contribs) has attempted to remove the CfD tag and re-placed the category into his own userspace - I have expressed the problems with this here. I have restored the CfD tag per policy, but left the user category as it is for the moment. Rauenstein is active and so in a position to explain the purpose of this category and make clear whether it is intended to be a user category or not - I will emphasize that such an explanation doesn't have to be in English. If such an explanation does not arrive, the category should be deleted and the sub-categories and images placed in appropriate location categories. CT Cooper · talk 16:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is not sufficient to delete files and categories only because the original purpose now is obsolete. But quite a lot of categories and subcategories of German districts have been emptied and deleted only because the named districts have been dissolved. This is against the purposes of Wikipedia and Commons as it would be to empty and delete the categories Soviet Union, Category:Confederate States of America, and others only because the named entities ceased to exist. Such a behaviour is clearly a sincere violation of our policies. So I startet to restitute some of the categories of former districts in Germany. This is a necessity for my after I started to prepare files for Commons which fit directly into the category former districts of Germany and its subcategories.

Secondly there are at least some dozens of files which have not been made by Rauenstein but by Hagar66 and maybe even by others. See all the SVG files in the Category:Locator maps of municipalities in the Landkreis Parchim. So it is obviously wrong to subcategories all of them to Category:Files by User Rauenstein.

--ludger1961 (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you that categories should not be deleted because the entity they represent no longer exists. I think the ultimate solution to this CfD is to ensure all files within it are placed within appropriate sub-categories if they are not already and to delete this category, since as you allude its purpose was always inappropriate and user and respiratory categories shouldn't be mixed anyway. CT Cooper · talk 19:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather disagree with keeping all categories of former entities in the same way current entities are used. You can keep these categories for those files that are directly related to the subject (for example the coat of arms image of a district) but they should not contain the categories of municipalities that formerly belonged to this district. It also happens that a municipality changes the district it belongs to – should the category of this municipality then be contained in both the category of the district it formerly belonged to and the one it now belongs to? It should be clear to the user of Wikimedia Commons what the current administrative structure is. But this discussion should take place somewhere else as this request should now to be closed.--Leit (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name - they are all goats! Not one looks like an ibex! Kiltpin (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a broad sense Alpine ibex (Capra ibex) ranks among goats, that's true. But especially for heraldic purposes this is a distinct animal - certainly it carries different symbolism than a domestic goat. The majority of contents here comes from Alpine countries and (even cases where blason is missing) it is in presence of other "mountain stuff" and "mountain names" reasonable to assume the depicted animal clearly represents that wild species, once common in corresponding region. And bear in mind that in case of Stenbock family it is a plainly canting figure. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a misunderstanding here. I have no objection to a category Ibexes in heraldry - as long as they look like ibexes. These do not! They look like goats! Heraldry is NOT about the names, it is about the look. If it looks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then as far as heraldry is concerned it is not a chicken, it is a duck. In all these cases the heraldic artist has drawn a goat not an ibex. They should be categorised as to what we are seeing not what they might be. They might be anything, but what they are is goats and should be categorised as such. Kiltpin (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say "nobody cares". That obviously isn't precise as at least I do care. :D Not everyone has only the visual issues in mind. In my opinion heraldry is also (and maybe principally) about symbolism. The figure usually carries some meaning and this meaning often varies even when images looks the same. And vice versa - an identical meaning (e. g. eagle, tower) could have very different graphical rendition despite being nominally one and the same figure. Bear in mind that not everywhere heraldry is so classical and pure as you wish to have it. An example: If an official decree, granted to a town, explicitely says "fir" (Abies alba) because the town name comes from (or is similar to) word for fir, then it matters. It is important to know that in this particular case figure represnts fir and not spruce (even if both depicted by a "generic coniferous tree"). That's why I once spent many hours with identification and categorizarion of these instances into subcategory within Coniferous trees. In German ot Czech municipal heraldry (for which we have parliament registry contsining blazons for each town) this is commonplace and any deletion of such detailed categories would be a loss of information from Commons.

The currently used solution (header notice and short explanation pointing to related categories) works well within category Goats. From perspective of reducing load to catrgory Animals an umbrella category (akin of Felids) would be useful for Goats Ibexes, Chamoises... Similarly to establish other groups of ungulates (deer-like, cow-like etc.) would make good sense for heraldry. Unfortunately the group name suggestions for them seem less straightforward than in case of dog-like and cat-like animals. Some umbrellas for couples like bull+cow or ram+sheep would be also helpful. How about to categorize (aside from already existing categories) some categories belonging to particular identifiable species also into parallel Category:Animals in heraldry by species (which would be placed to foremost position within the overall category Animals in heraldry. Categories for Bulls and Cows would then, aside from being in Domestic animals and "Cow-like-animals", appear there under Category:Bos taurus in heraldry, other animals similarly, all alphabetically in one category. This semi-parallel scheme would comply whith real-world natural background and also help in international+interlanguage clarity while keeping trivial designations for primary use. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know more about Botany and Zoology and Biology and I don't know what other 'ology', but I know about Heraldry. I know how to blazon and I know how to read a shield and I know that as far as heraldry is concerned symbolism is such a minute part as to be unnoticeable. "In my opinion heraldry is also (and maybe principally) about symbolism. The figure usually carries some meaning and this meaning often varies even when images looks the same." Your opinion is incorrect and just fanciful. Serious heraldists have been fighting against this nonsense for years. Boutells and Fox-Davis (two experts in the field) give this short shrift and have dismissed the idea out of hand.

To get back to my original post of the 7 July 2012 - "Wrong name - they are all goats! Not one looks like an ibex!" - that has not been addressed.

We obviously do not and will not have consensus on this matter. Kiltpin (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no progress has been made in the discussion for quite a while. Also, the initial reason for discussion Not one looks like an ibex! is not true now, Category:Ibexes in heraldry now contains ibexes while Category:Goats in heraldry contains goats (many of which look like ibexes to me, too ...). There are also links to related categories. --rimshot^talk 14:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Residential buildings is not a useful subdivision of Housing. They are really two names for the same thing, which doesn't make it easier to find anything. It leads to two separate trees of Residential builidngs by country and Housing by country, but at the country and regional levels there's no need for both categories. If Housing became too crowded, it would be better to make a category "Housing by function", or similar. Ghouston (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Housing is the parent category of residential buildings - it shouldn't lead to two separate category trees, but rather a standard parent cat/sub cat arrangement. Housing isn't a subcategory of Buildings, and shouldn't be, but Residential buildings is. Housing is the broader category, which in addition to residential buildings, also covers (the admittedly small) class of non-building housing (everything from bedouin tents to igloos to many refugee camps), as well as related categories pertaining to housing such as Housing organizations, Husing statistics, squatting, homelessness (ironically), etc. If these categories ever were merged (not that I think they should be), the merged cat should maintain the residential buildings name, to maintain consistency with most of the other subcats in Category:Buildings by function.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit tricky. The distinction now, that Residential buildings contains mostly subcategories that are types of buildings, while Housing contains other stuff, is easier to see now that I've moved these subcategories around with this idea in mind. However if you want the Buildings category tree to only contain media that feature acutal buildings, then there's a lot more work to do. E.g., Category:Buildings itself has categories like Building construction‎ and Models of buildings‎ which wouldn't belong there, even though they relate to Buildings. Then in Category:Houses we have House keeping and Models of houses which aren't buildings either. However they relate to Houses. Therefore, it makes sense to me that a single category Housing can contain actual houses as well as things that relate to housing. Wether the the category is named Housing or Residential buildings doesn't matter much, but I prefer Housing because it's shorter and it's a common term. The Houses category is already named in this way (I suppose it could be House buildings or something, but there's no point). You can see the confusion that results in the by-country subtrees: Category:Residential buildings in Austria is used for apartments and Category:Apartment buildings in Austria redirects to it, while Category:Housing in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (and many similar categories) is used for apartments, even though these will no longer be categories under Buildings if Housing doesn't go in there Ghouston (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think categories like Building construction‎ and Models of buildings do pertain to buildings, in a manner that categories like Housing organizations would not pertain to Housing if it were converted into a buildings category. And there is hardly rampant confusion -- there are few category trees on the Commons where one can't locate a few inconsistencies.

I think merging Housing and Residential Buildings is unnecessary, but if it is to be done the merged category should be named Residential Buildings. Housing is an ambiguous word, and often used only to refer to houseform buildings. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you don't agree, and nobody else cares, I'll accept defeat and leave it as it is. Ghouston (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to compromise if the merged category were named Residential Buildings. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to compromise after I have accepted defeat :) But I do think one category Residential buildings would be better. And it wouldn't matter if somebody was using Housing instead in some of the country subcategories, like all those London boroughs, since the name is simply a redirect and doesn't break the category logic. Ghouston (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody should be defeated. :) Intellectually I think the merge is unnecessary, but a compromise is always good, and the value of a simpler approach should never be discounted. Done. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very similar discussion about Schools/School buildings/Educational buildings. I argue the same way there, that it's undesirable to try to split the building/non-building aspect of schools. ghouston (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing without action, since the discussion is dead and there was no consensus to change anything. --ghouston (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. See also: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2012/07#Gallery portals and Commons:Featured galleries.

No need to add all gallery pages in a category Foroa (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use Special:AllPages or just type a name in the search box. --Foroa (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Gallery portals --Timeshifter (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is here, village pump is archived in a week (or two). --Foroa (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss there too. They are related discussions. Village Pump topics in that particular Village Pump stay up for months in many cases. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we organise this into subcategories, it would help get an overview of what's out there. I think part of the problem with galleries is the lack of an overview. The "meta-gallery" approach mentioned at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Gallery portals would help - but so would this, and in addition it would help build such meta-galleries. To give a concrete example: we'd like to have Neptune (planet), Uranus, Saturn (planet) etc all together somehow. One way to do it is to overcategorise, so that in addition to the relevant planet category, the gallery is in Category:Planets of the Solar System. Another is to create a category, Category:Planets of the Solar System galleries. In terms of getting a Big Picture of what's out there for galleries, the second approach is more helpful (because the category will be a subcategory of Category:Gallery pages). This has some potential to create a parallel category structure to the existing one, but with so many fewer galleries than files, I think we can live with it for the benefit of getting an overview of galleries. Rd232 (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything would be better than nothing. I had no idea until today that there were 106,000 gallery pages on the Commons (according to Foroa). That's insane. How is someone supposed to get an overview of gallery pages? See suggestions on the other thread too: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Gallery portals

I started a Bugzilla thread about showing only gallery pages while browsing Commons categories:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38214 --Timeshifter (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a gallery category makes some sense - when I first arrived at Commons, I certainly looked for one! And if it's used as a parent category only (Foroa's "redundant" point is well taken), it could be quite useful! The categorization scheme here is too complex for the number of galleries here, even though it generally makes sense for files. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your discussion, as the gallery Rosa cultivars by alphabet (one of the subgalleries of Rosa - the 'metagallery' would be Plants) was added to the category Gallery pages. I've now read through your discussions here and in the village pump archive and I still don't really understand why you think this new category structure is needed...

As can be seen with Category:Gallery pages, Switzerland, this will create exactly what you don't want - another category tree with names for content instead of the 'metagalleries' with pictures and links to the subgalleries!

I'm working a lot with galleries (and sometimes even so called 'metagalleries') and I think it would be marvelous if more people would work on them, as they have to be created and maintained... and you are right that creating 'metagalleries' often means that you have to create quite a few of the subgalleries, too... on the other side, galleries are found quite easily by 'normal users' by just typing what you are looking for into the search box at the top of the page - if a gallery exists, that's what you will find. And if not - you are welcome to create the gallery! ;->

There is a project which would help the promotion of galleries quite a lot - Commons:Featured galleries - sadly, it never was formally proposed (I still hope it will be someday ;->).

Anna reg (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Anna reg, that we don't need another category tree. A flat category would be very helpful though. No subcategories. Then an A-Z TOC (with many subdivisions) would allow easy browsing of galleries. Maybe as part of creating a gallery namespace some code could be added by the MediaWiki developers to automatically populate a flat category of gallery pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm so sceptic because I personally can't see myself browsing categories without pictures ;-> - but if I understand your idea, you want to create something similar to the template-categories (helping common users to have an overview)? I'm still not sure if that can help normal users (I suspect that I'm not the only one overhelmed by categories with lots of text) but you are correct that a flat category shouldn't create more confusion.
As a warning (;->): I can tell you that the 2390 results for 'Rosa' galleries include perhaps up to 200 redirects - the others are all galleries (each rosa species and cultivars should have its own). All those galleries can be reached by links from Rosa (via subpages). Are you sure you want them all included in your category?
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People can drill down categories into subcategories by clicking the subcategory arrows in a category such as Category:Rosa. That is text, not images. So at first you probably do browse category trees without pictures. An equivalent functionality would be helpful for galleries. Manually creating gallery index pages such as rosa species and rosa cultivars is one possibility. So is the Special:AllPages idea discussed below. Right now there is no overarching gallery method. There is no entry into the wealth of galleries. There is nothing. It is haphazard, and most people do not know of the vast number of galleries, or how to scan gallery titles. Very few people will use Special:AllPages unless it is linked from an overarching entry point such as Category:Gallery pages. And that entry page would have to heavily promoted from the Main Page, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: Presently, not in any futuristic scenario, this category is completely useless and confusing to editors.    FDMS  4    15:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foroa said elsewhere that there are 106,000 gallery pages. Here is the source:

• Help:Namespaces

It is not listed here though:

• Commons:Database reports/Page count by namespace

What is the source for the 60,000 redirects that Foroa mentioned elsewhere? --Timeshifter (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In Commons:Database reports/Page count by namespace, there is a column for 73000 redirects (13000 more than the claimed ones) and one for non-redirects. Unfortunately, we have no distinction between gallery and category redirects, the latter forming probably the majority. --Foroa (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An A-Z TOC template is better for the average reader than Special:AllPages.

There are several A-Z TOC templates available for categories:

• Template:LargeCategoryTOC
• Template:CategoryTOC

Click on "What links here" for those templates to find the categories using the templates. Some of the categories with those templates have hundreds of thousands of pages/files in them. Some over a million. For example;

• Category:PD-self
• Category:People by name --Timeshifter (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two good points: there are some very enormous categories, and we have some tools for making them slightly more manageable. Rd232 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this tree. I see galleries as underutilized. We normally only find them when we are looking at the category tree which has a gallery of the same name, or when using the search function for a phrase. A gallery like London should really be more discoverable. rigt now its only categorized under London. we either need to categorize galleries more (like putting London in Category:Cities or Category:Europe, which we would not do with individual images of london), or have a separate tree for navigation, like this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a long time before tens of thousands of gallery pages get categorized in a galleries category, and be browsable via an A-Z table of contents.

And that would still not make gallery pages as easy to find as they need to be.

See Help:Namespaces. A gallery namespace could be created. Since it is a namespace it could be searchable.

In Special:Search there is an option to search for galleries but it is confusing. I do not believe that all pages without any other namespace are galleries. An explicitly named gallery namespace would be helpful. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was starting to wonder why we didnt have a way to separate disambiguation pages and redirects from galleries. If we are committed to using galleries (which we appear to be), i think we need very specific search tools for them, in addition to eventually having a category tree for them. What can we do to get action on this?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to find out why a 'gallery search' could be confusing - if I follow your link to Special:Search, I just have to check the first box - it's even called (Gallery) - and leave all others empty and the results will be galleries and redirects (but that can be seen in the short description available in the search result - even though I agree that it's strange that the option list redirects doesn't influence the result at all). I finally found out that I'm automatically directed to the tab 'advanced' (the rightmost tab), where those options can be easily found. I hope that helps for further searches... Anna reg (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Search has a box (advanced tab) to search galleries. But it is very inadequate. It actually does not search just gallery pages. It pulls up disambiguation pages, redirects, and more. Unchecking "List redirects" does not seem to change the results.

Also, there is no option to search only titles. That would help tremendously in many cases. So one would check the gallery box and a titles-only box.

Currently, searches with the gallery box checked returns pages with the terms found in the title or on the page. This can pull up many irrelevant results. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that what are called articles on Wikipedias is called gallery here on commons. Alan Liefting (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special:AllPages defaults to searching pages without any namespace. It is a start. But it is not browsable due to the huge number of gallery pages.

There needs to be an easier way to browse the entries. Currently one has to manually copy and paste into these 2 forms

• "Display pages starting at ..."
• "Display pages ending at ..."

Then one can browse a section of gallery page titles.

It would be better if there were a link to the side of each entry in Special:AllPages to dig deeper until one gets to a browsable list of page titles. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:AllPages is really only for editors. Need something more user friendly for readers/viewers. Alan Liefting (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(old discussion. pinging to get some action - @Timeshifter: , @Anna reg: , @Mercurywoodrose: , @Foroa: , @FDMS4: , @Rd232: , @Philosopher: )

Initially I thought that it is of no use except as a tracking category but then I thought that if the contents were organised into a categorisation scheme that parallels what already exists on Commons we will end up with a useful resource for readers/viewers. English Wikipedia has portals as a means for readers to get an overview of a topic. What does Commons have? We really only have categories but categories have inherent limitations. Readers/viewers should be served up something better. With gallery pages different languages can be served up, sections and TOCs can be added, images can be organised by topic/subject/theme rather than simply dished out alphanumerically, Featured/quality/valued images can be nicely displayed, etc.

Incidentally I notice that the MediaWikisoft does actually call these pages as "Gallery" on the actual page file link (next to the Discussion" link).

If this page is kept there is a huge amount of work needed to set up the gallery pages infrastructure. There will be thousands of galleries (pages) and categories that will need to be created. I feel that the current system where things get constructed organically over time is not the right way to do it. We can use a number of automated and semi-automated tools to do some of the work. One problem that I have struck in an attempt to build Commons infrastructure from the ground up rather than on the fly resulted in all of the empty categories that I created getting deleted! Alan Liefting (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like there is a general feeling to keep it. It is serving as the root directory for all of the gallery pages. Deleting this one leaves a hole in the categorisation scheme. Also, two and a half years is far too long for a CfD to remain open.Alan Liefting (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name - it should be Ermine spots on chevrons Kiltpin (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ermine spots are charges and as such it should always be be on a surface, rather than in a surface. Kiltpin (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done moved to Category:Ermine spots on chevrons –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are locator maps, not location maps Secretlondon (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category contains locator maps, not location maps. Location maps unlikely to be created for ethnic groups, which don't inhabit a single GPS coordinate. Redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

locator maps not location maps Secretlondon (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, let's rename it. And also rename the parent category then, too, please.--Imz (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category contains locator maps, not location maps. Location maps unlikely to be created for ethnic groups, which don't inhabit a single GPS coordinate. Redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ecological" should be replaced with "Environmental". The words have different meanings and the contents relate mainly to the environment (esp climate change) rather than ecology. -- Alan Liefting (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC) --- No opposition in over three years. Redirected to Category:Environmental trends. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some very sloppy editing, so that this page is readable. Can someone please do some proper editing to get the template right. Kiltpin (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be categorised according to tincture, attribute, number etc., as per "Category:Lions in heraldry" etc. More use when searching for images to modify into new arms. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It looks like Lobsterthermidor has done a wonderful job and corrected all my disastrous editing! Kiltpin (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues have been resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Wikipedia is en:Quadracycle, so it seems better to move this category to Category:Quadracycles. After moved, this category might be used for other terms of "Quadricycles". 丁 (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quadricycles is equally English and dominant in the other languages, Quadracycle is not used in any other language. --Foroa (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Language policy, category names should be in English. Do you think en:Quadracycle is inappropriate in English? --丁 (talk)

I am not English. I found the word Quadricycle for motorized four-wheeled cars with passenger seat in the front.

• Nr. 28
• Nr. 49 and Nr. 50
• Book about De Dion-Bouton (in English)
• Book about Peugeot (in German)
• Guide de l’automobile française, article about Chenard & Walcker (in French)

I created the German article de:Quadricycle for this type of motor vehicle. I don’t want any confusion between four-wheeled vehicles with motor and four-wheeled vehicles without motor. I think that we must rename the category:Quadricycle in category:motorized quadricycle with front passenger seat. --Buch-t (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the deletion of category:Quadricycle we need a special category:motorized quadricycle with front passenger seat to stop the confusion between:

• without engine
• with engine, front passenger seat, around 1900
• small cars, around 2000 --Buch-t (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to take confusions away. For four-wheeled forecar, how about Category:Quadricycles (forecar)? However another category for small cars may not be needed yet. There is already Category:Microcars. --丁 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quadricycles (forecar) is OK. --Buch-t (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing. Since nobody opposed, I have made a new category. Please check Category:Quadricycles (forecar). --丁 (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but missing link to Motorized quadracycles and with that level of documentation, they will be all mixed up again in two months time. --Foroa (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting but I made Category:Motorized quadracycles only for hybrid quadricycles/quadracycles. This is the reason why I didn't link Category:Quadricycles (forecar) to that. Now another category, such like Category:Quadricycles (motor vehicle), may be needed for old four wheeled motor vehicles which you linked. Or if four-wheeled pedal cycles are really called as w:quadracycles in English, how about using Category:Quadracycles for pedal cycles, then using Category:Quadricycles for motor vehicles? --丁 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the beginning, quadricycles is a much more international term, no need to change it to quadracycles; you will not solve your naming problem by using a slight variation on Quadricycles. And if you don't make a link between the various quadricycles, someone else will do. I think that differentiating Category:Quadricycles (motor vehicle) with Category:Motorized quadracycles just by playing with spelling and punctuation will not work. --Foroa (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the category for hybrid quadricycles shouldn't be made on Commons? --丁 (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, that from the titles and category structure, one should be able to guess the category content. Creating somewhere a "hybrid quadricycles" while somewhere else unconnected "Motorized quadracycles" and "Quadricycles (motor vehicle)" categories exist makes no sense and is a recipe for mix-up. I thought that the idea was to clarify and untangle the quadricyle mix-up. You seem basically trying to invent new names that are marginally different from other ones. --Foroa (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misunderstanding me, and I might also be misunderstanding you. OK, shall we stop wasting time? Now I have made Category:Quadricycles (motor vehicle) but I don't care if you delete it, then let me see how you solve the confusions. --丁 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll make a more detailed structural proposition that includes all involved cats in the coming week. --Foroa (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My idea: Every category with the word Quadricycle need human-powered or motorized.

• Top category: category:Quadricycles, without the description human-powered vehicle, no pictures in this category.
  • Under top category the category:Human-powered Quadricycles.
    • Under this the pictures of Human-powered Quadricycles and
    • Category:Human-powered Quadricycles in Belgium (instead of Quadricycles in Belgium).
  • Under top category the category:Motorized Quadricycles
    • Under this the category:Motorized Quadricycles (Forecar) and
    • category:Other types of motorized Quadricycles around 1900 or category:Motorized four-wheeled cars around 1900 called Quadricycle by the manufacturer, but not Forecars (I know, 2 bad names) for four-wheeled-vehicles around 1900 called Quadricycle by the manufacturer, but not Forecars, like Category:Ford Quadricycle.
      Note: File:1899 De Dion-Bouton quadricycle, Europeana.jpg, Category:Peugeot Type 3 and File:Daimler Motor-Quadricycle.JPG are not called Quadricycle by the manufacturer.
• No idea for category:Pedal cars.
• Small cars around 2000 not in one of these categories. --Buch-t (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to split in countries like in Belgium?

Pedal cars are possible with 3 and 4 wheels, so not in this category. --Buch-t (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No answers? --Buch-t (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedal cars are predominantly 4 wheel cars and a variation of Quadricycles.

I would propose the following structure:

[[::Category:Quadricycles]] the evolution from bicycles to quadricycles, in the beginning without motors

Category:Quadricycles (motor vehicle) for all things that start to look like an auto, subcats look fine to me

Category:Quadricycles (motor assisted) now in Category:Motorized quadracycles, for all quadricycles that still have some sort of pedals

Category:Pedal cars containing several subcats:

Category:Pedal cars for tourism (including renaming of the Category:Quadricycles in Belgium)

Category:Pedal cars for special events for the large (beer) pedal cars)

So the root Category:Quadricycles should contain only antique non motorised quadricycles. --Foroa (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quadricycles only antique non motorised quadricycles: OK.

It is difficult to split between Category:Quadricycles (motor vehicle) and Category:Quadricycles (motor assisted). Look at the Automoto picture. Pedals? Perhaps Category:Quadricycles (motor vehicle) for both.

Subcats: (Forecar) for front-seat like the Automoto and (standard seating) for 2 seats side-by-side, like the pictures in Category:Ford Quadricycle. More than 2 seats is not usual for this very early small motor vehicles.

Category:Pedal cars and subcats: OK --Buch-t (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite tell, Buch-t, but it looks like you and Foroa reached consensus here. If this category tree is sorted now, can we close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No answer in 3 years. You can close. --Buch-t (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closed due to lack of interest. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name - No one will search for Beech Marten, Marten yes, Beech Marten no. The category should be called marten. They look like pine martens anyway. Kiltpin (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Beech marten" is the common name of a species of marten, and beech martens aren't pine martens. Why should it be excluded from this category? Jarble (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beech Marten might very well be be different from Pine Martens, but that is not the point. It is not that it should be be exclude, but rather that it should not be included in the first place.

1. In the category, in question, all the martins look the same, but they do not look like beech martens, or pine martens, or any other kind of martens - they just look like martens.
2. Because they are all blue, they have stopped being a specific species of marten and become, just martens.
3. None of the 6 blazons state that they are a "beech marten", but rather they state "d'une fouine d'azur"
4. Our own Wiktionary[[1]], gives this definition: "fouine f (plural fouines) - weasel, stone marten"
5. We must stick to the blazon and the image. Neither of which state beech marten nor look like any particular species.
6. This is Project Heraldry, not Project Zoology. We cannot, in clear conscience, have a category for every single species of animal. Kiltpin (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: Further thoughts? It seems to me that Kiltpin has made a strong case. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: per Kiltpin: images moved in Martens in heraldry. Ruthven (msg) 10:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over-categorisation - No one will ever search for Canids. Kiltpin (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the "Carnivores in heraldry" category had become too crowded, so I was trying to categorize it more precisely, by taxon. Also, can you explain why "no one will no one ever search for Canids?" Jarble (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to expand the scope of "Category:Canidae." Some people who are viewing "Category:Canidae" might be searching for examples of canids in heraldry, so "Category:Canids in heraldry" will make it easier to find this information. Jarble (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not only for searching but also for thematic grouping and creating of system in things. And from my point of wiew an over-category for dogs, wolves, foxes etc. makes good sense. You have similar animals under one roof and you also can link it with categories from other fields (biology, art etc.). People are interested in various things and from various perspectives, not only heraldry. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: category moved to Canines in heraldry. Ruthven (msg) 10:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In English heraldry these are known as "male griffins". 'Keythongs' is too archaic to be used. Kiltpin (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do you have anything to support this? After all many griffins are depicted as male. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are and they are called male griffins. I am not saying that the term does not exist, I am saying that no one will search for it, which rather defeats the object of having a separate category. The top category should be griffins and the sub category should be male griffins (keythongs). Kiltpin (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which one is preferred, do you have a source? I feel uncomfortable making the change without a source to support it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a lack of source. Neither Boutell's, nor An Heraldic Alphabet have a listing for Keythongs. But they both have listings for Griffen (Gryphon) underwhich is found the description for the male griffen. Kiltpin (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiltpin: This category is rather sparsely populated anyway. Could we just upmerge it to Category:Griffins in heraldry? Just asking... - Themightyquill (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I think that would be the best plan. Kiltpin (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirected to Category:Griffins in heraldry. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category is nonsense because it is simply not a Commons project scope (e.g. educational ones) to categorize locomotives by the waggons hanging behind them especially if they are such ordinary double decker waggons in Germany. 178.2.55.55 20:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Subcat to specifiy Double-Decks with this one class, to collect all of this pics - now they are in both (double decs and class 143) as subcat instead of all pictures in the overcat. Makes it more clear, can't see a prob![reply]

 Not done: category moved to Category:Category:DB Class 143 with double-decker trains. Ruthven (msg) 10:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

en:Aerial topdressing is a special kind of en:Aerial application. So imho, we have two options here: 1) move the whole cat to the more generic Aerial appilication or 2) create a new Aerial application-Cat and make Aerial topdressing a subcat of it. The Cat is rather empty atm, but there are lots of pictures around that could be put into it.

Personally, I would prefer option 1), because if you just look at the pictures and don't read the description texts, you won't be able to see whether that's fertilizer being sprayed or something different like pesticedes. What do you think? El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with option 1 is that it sounds a little like deciding the world will only have one language and that it must be English used the way I like to use it. You know, might take a century or so but those foreigners'll get used to it in the end. However we categorize it in Wikipedia the people will go on calling it aerial topdressing. Why is there pressure for change? Interesting thought though.

Ah, I see now, in Wikimedia Commons everything has been pushed under aerial topdressing. I'd be in favour of option 2 with all the cropdusters etc under Aerial application. Does it look as if I have a proper understanding of your question? If not please tell me where I go wrong. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddaido, thanks for your thoughts.

To be honest, I'm not sure if I really understand your first paragraph completely. I'm not a native speaker, so I don't know which term is preferred in every day language - I just noticed that Wikipedia (here: the english language version) makes a clear distinction between the meaning of the two words: Aerial application is the general term for using an aircraft for spraying stuff (anything from fertilizer to Round Up), wheras Aerial topdressing is for fertilizer only (however, people sometimes (?) use it as a synonym for Aerial application).

Second paragraph: Jep, that's the "problem". The more I think abpout it, the better I like option 2): Category:Aerial application as the main category for the spraying of fertilizer/herbicides/fungicides/whatever and Category:Aerial topdressing as a fertilizer-only subcat. Other subcats could be created for aerial liming etc.

Also, we have pictures such as this one, showing the spraying of en:Agent Orange during the Vietnam War as well as Category:Aerial firefighting, which could fit into Category:Aerial application but as far as I understand it not necessarily into Category:Aerial topdressing (Again: Not a native speaker, please correct me if I'm wrong!). Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in complete agreement. I see the Oxford English Dictionary says topdressing is 'the application of manure' (i.e. fertilizer) 'to the surface of the soil' (first recorded use 1744). Best wishes Eddaido (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's not forget that seeding is another variation of aerial application, that is often more environmentally friendly than many of the others. Second, I deprecate the general use of the word cropdusting; to me it is an ambiguous US-specific term, that implies the application of solid materials via hoppers and venturi devices (eg swathmaster), not in a fluid suspension. Cropspraying, of fluids via nozzles, has been the predominant worldwide method of aerial application of fungicides, pesticides and fertilizers for many decades.PeterWD (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, PeterWD. Just to be clear: Did I get you get you right, that you would also favour the option of making Category:Aerial application the main category with various subcategories for "topdressing", seeding and so on? One could probably argue about the details (e.g. does firefighting with aircraft belong there or not), but I think the general concept is a good one. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was only attempting disambiguation and clarification of the sub topics. Regards 'Aerial application' as a category, perhaps that might be ambiguous for those who are unfamiliar with the term. Is 'Aerial application in agriculture' too long? The en:wp article is not entirely clear and concise, and starts by equating it with cropdusting (ugh), then confusingly adds waterbombing. In my mind, the 'executive action' part of aerial firefighting certainly comes under aerial application.PeterWD (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To confuse matters further, see Wiktionary top-dress that focuses mostly on application of loose soil, and my British manual of lawn care agrees. I do it every year, without fertilizer, to replace the bulk lost in grass cuttings.PeterWD (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically what de:Topdressing says, too. On the other hand, my en:OALD says: top-dressing: Manure or fertilizer put onto the surface of a field and not dug or ploughed into the soil. So obviously the word may have different meanings, depending on the context.

I don't think 'Aerial application in agriculture' would be too long. I might be a good idea to make it a subcat of Aerial application to separate the agricultural stuff from things like firefighting. --El Grafo (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another thought - land management covers both agriculture and wildland plantlife, so perhaps 'Aerial application in land management' would be the most accurate catch-all for all the aerial applications we have in mind.PeterWD (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's too long and Aerial application is enough by itself. What might be the topics which might land there that we don't want there? Eddaido (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In designing category hierarchies, surely we should be using both lateral and forward thinking. The point is that Aerial application does not exclusively come under agriculture. For example, aerial firefighting is already applied to agriculture (farming and forestry), 'wildlands', urban buildings, and ships at sea. Firefighting aircraft and crop sprayers are also used to apply oil-dispersants onto oil slicks, and even cloud seeding could be considered as aerial application.PeterWD (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (I think) I was just hoping someone might schedule out or prepare a diagram of how they saw the hierarchy below aerial application which I assume would be the top, would you mind showing your thoughts? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I've just been brainstorming, with no plan for a hierarchy. My main focus is on applying aircraft type cats to aircraft images, and that can be tricky if we have too many 'silly' categories with large numbers of members. For example, 'White aircraft' with 112 images is becoming more time-consuming to easily check all the type cats via slide show, never mind the registration cats there. Anyway, in this case, El Grafo's proposal for Aerial application can be a first step, under Aircraft operations. Below it we can have Aircraft in agriculture and Aerial firefighting. Aircraft types would come under those two subcats. Aerial topdressing could come under Aircraft in agriculture, but would not displace aircraft types from there, because 'agricultural' aircraft are multi-function, and difficult to differentiate exactly what material is being (or could be) applied. If no-one else wants to take the action, I'll start it off with a few small changes that can be reversed after assessment and discussion.PeterWD (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK to me. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo, Eddaido, and PeterWD: Has this been resolved? Can we close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passage of time with the current categories and their descriptions, as developed above, suggests that we might have resolved the issue. I'm happy.PeterWD (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as resolved. Thanks everyone. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over categorisation - No one will ever search for Felids. Kiltpin (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the "Carnivores in heraldry" catgory had become too crowded, so I was trying to categorize it more precisely. Jarble (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to expand the scope of "Category:Felidae." Some people who are viewing "Category:Felidae" might be searching for examples of felids in heraldry, so "Category:Felids in heraldry" will make it easier to find this information. Jarble (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that be the case then we need Felids in automotive artwork; Felids in advertising; Felids in television; Felids in films; Felids in animations; Felids in blogs; Felids in cross-stitch; Felids in porcelain; Felids in sport; Felids in mascots; Felids in clothing; Felids in handi-craft; Felids in spots; Felids in stripes; Felids in domesticated animals; Felids in photoshop; Felids in every conceivable subject under the sun.

I come back to my first contention - no one interested in heraldry will search for Felids in heraldry. Sorry Kiltpin (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per Canids - if the discussed category helps in keeping categories for cat-like animals together, then it is useful. A reader can for example easily see and compare the prevalence of different Felids in heraldry and therefore the importance of each species in that field: There are thousands occurences of lions, but domestic cats or pumas appear much less frequently. That's what this category can say at one glance. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. As far as heraldry is concerned, if a person is searching for lions, what he wants is lions, he does not want all the other spam added in. Kiltpin (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does makes sense. What one considers a spam might be of interest for others. And if a person is searching for lions, there we have Category:Lions in heraldry and this category isn't burried significantly more than an average Commons category. IMHO the scheme applied by Jarble (i.e. some "natural" grouping of animal categories) is a useful (and inevitable) solution of overcrowding within that territory. You perhaps call for most basic animals like Lions or Eagles being categorised more prominently in comparsion with Geese or Wisents, but I think that this would make only a small improvement for pure heraldic purposes but otherwise raise entropy. ;) IMHO category layer Felids inserted between Animals ans Lions is perfectly OK, categories Panthera onca and Panthera pardus should be moved lower by one level into Panthers where they would serve for identified subjects. Generic depictions without specific geographicel/cultural background info should be directly in category Panthers. I hope this solution will satisfy both the visual aspect and biological relations. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: As per the cfd for Canids in heraldry; however, these categories should be metacategories (in theory). Moved to Felines in heraldry. Ruthven (msg) 09:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over categorisation - No one will ever search for Panthera onca - should be in panthers. Kiltpin (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If in some cases the depicted less commons species is known with certainity, then having one common category for more species would be a loss of information in possibility of relation to corresponding category Category:Panthera onca. And by the way: The issue deserves not only zoological but also heraldical separation - jaguar is a completely different species from panther, it occurs at a different continent and as such represent an early modern and modern era layer of heraldry. That's enough reason for keeping it separated from panther from the Old World. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but over categorisation ? have you seen the categories "Category:stars in heraldry" and "Category:lions in heraldry" ? practically there is a category for every position of these elements, that's what I call over categorisation. With Category:Panthera onca in heraldry I only tried to separate the real animal from the heraldic animal. excuse my english. --Shadowxfox (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowxfox - Just because there is over-categorisation in one area, is not an excuse for over-categorisation everywhere. We might as well have a separate category for every single species of animal that has ever lived. The top category 'Heraldry' is a total swamp. You cannot find anything and it is too easy to get lost. If someone is searching for the heraldic charge of a panther, they will search for 'panther' they will not search for the Latin name, so why have it? As far as I am aware, the consensus that was established many years ago is that we are supposed to use 'English' category names.

@Miaow Miaow - This is all down to the heraldic artist. It is only important if the blazon says so. An example is the arms of Wilson - Or a fess Gules between three elephants heads erased and tusked Sable. Note: not three Indian elephants nor three African elephants, but just three elephants. It is up to the heraldic artist to interpret the blazon. They will not become different arms because the artist preferred the shape of the African elephants head over the Indian. And what's more the viewer will see a panther, they will not be thinking that it is a special genus.

The whole top category is a mess, it is so difficult to find anything. And just creating more and more and more and more and more categories will not help. Kiltpin (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment, that the categories must have English names? as I have understood, can be in English, but due to the multilingual feature of the project the categories' name, can be in any language; in this particular case, because to say jaguar in English is different to say it in German, Vietnamese or Chinese, is preferable the Latin name. Is true that the category of heraldry is a complete mess, but to facilitate the search, there is this page; I think the distinction of biological elements such as this is not over categorization, and I'm not taking the above categories as an excuse but as an example .--Shadowxfox (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very disingenuous Shadowfox. Your quote "Category_names can be in any language" is not what it says. It actually says "Category names should generally be in English". That is now way to win an argument, by lying about quotes. As for your second link, it leads to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Panthers_in_heraldry. Which in turn leads to two links - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Starhemberg_family and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Panther_of_Styria. Your two panther categories are not linked to the main panther category. So what is the point of having them?

Too many users confuse the main point, which is - this is part of Commons:WikiProject Heraldry. Not Biology, not Botany, not Zooology, not any other 'ology', but Heraldry. It does not help Heraldry for users to show how clever they are. Kiltpin (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, this discussion should be merged with Category:Panthera pardus in heraldry.
• Second, with all respect, Kiltpin doesn't seem to be quite familiar with heraldry. Most of the time it is Or a fess Gules between three elephants, but sometimes it is indeed Or a fess Gules between three Indian elephants. As Miaow Miaow said, there is often a myth, legend or actual event behind a coat of arms, which is reflected in very specific CoA descriptions. When the actual species is specified, it should be respected and distinguished.
• Third: As I understand, category heraldry is not for "everyones easy use". If you're not familiar with the subject, you'll find it "a swamp", "a mess", etc. It is the same for all and every subject involving some technical knowledge, not just for heraldry. In fact, being a more universal subject in its nomenclature, heraldry is much more easy to follow for people not very familiar with English (but familiar with heraldry) than, say, something as "simple" as doors.
• Fourth - When you have literally tenths of thousands of files in a category like Category:stars in heraldry, you'll start dividing them by every available detail. That is not overcategorization, and it eases everyone's life a lot actually. If you are looking for a coat of arms with "5 pointed star Or", you don't have to rummage through thousands of irrelevant files to find what you want. I really fail to understand your concerns here.

-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"With all respect", - Darwin, I know more about Heraldry than you ever will; certainly more about blazonning.

I do not believe that you have shown good faith, so far, in your dealings with me. I will therefore answer in kind. Under Participants in Project Heraldry, you put: "(pt) (en-2) (fr-2) (es-2) categorization, Portuguese heraldry, planning to upload a large set of historical depictions of Portuguese coats of arms"

You don't seem to be very keen or eager to do any categorization, so maybe "with all respect", you should step aside and let those of us that want to improve Project Heraldry, get on with it. And if you had bothered to check, there are not "literally tenths of thousands of files" in category Panther. Kiltpin (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't have the least idea of what you are talking about, since a huge part of heraldry categorization in this project has been made by me. And this you can see for yourself just by looking at it (which you never did, it seems).

Now, please, bring some arguments to discuss what I just have said, instead of simply attacking me, which is utterly pointless. You claim to know about heraldry, but are apparently oblivious to the fact that sometimes the animal species is clearly specified in the blazoning - which is the root of this whole discussion. At this point, I really don't know if you have a serious doubt about these categories, or if you are merely fooling around pointlessly and wasting everyone's precious time.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tit for tat. Please quote, where I say that species names are NOT used in blazoning! You can't, because I never said it. I know perfectly well that many blazons have the species name specified, but it is a relatively recent innovation. Second half of the 20th century. Can you quote a blazon, say, from before 1945 where the species name is used? So the vast bulk of heraldic history doesn't use species names.

More to the point, no one has yet quoted the blazons of the shields of the two panthers in question. I mean real blazons, as in granted. Not something cobbled together and called a Panthera pardus or a Panthera onca, just to win the argument. If so many of these official shields with their official blazons exist, then there might be a case for having a separate category, but as it stands the pardus looks like an onca and they both look like a domestic tabby cat. Kiltpin (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked - Can you quote a blazon, say, from before 1945 where the species name is used? - Well, the species name is generally used, but recalling your comment above about Indian elephants - ...Upon a chief embattled argent, an Indian elephant proper beneath the word INDIA in gold, circa 1820. source. If you mean the binomial species name, you should specify that. I'm not good at reading minds.

Anyway, you have yet to explain what is your problem. Is it overcategorization, or the use of the binomial species name? First of all, I don't even know what do you call a "panther", since it can be a lot of things, from pumas to lionesses. It is quite clear that no such thing as "panther" should ever be used to categorize anything here besides heraldic panthers. Second, if your problem is with the binomial name, Category:Panthera pardus in heraldry is named that way in order to not be confused with the heraldic leopard. I don't know why this one is named this way, perhaps the creator saw the Panthera pardus category and thought it should be that way, but in fact this one should be named Category:Jaguars in heraldry to stay in line with our conventions.

If there is a problem here, it is with the use of the binomial name. What is not, in any case, is overcategorization - there is an obvious use for this category since a lot of CoAs use jaguars in their emblasonent - and what is not acceptable at all is your solution of moving everything to some utterly useless whatever-everything-fits-let's-just-drop-it-here category such as "panthers". -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've just seen that your "solution" is already occupied with an heraldic monster. You didn't even checked that before opening these silly discussions. Jezz... What a waste of time. :\ -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 05:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, it is a waste of time trying to debate with you - all I get is insults in return. We do not have consensus and I do not believe that we ever will. I will not debate this with you further, but please do not believe that you have 'won'. Kiltpin (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Kiltpin, if you want to categorize these files differently, do it, I have no problem with that. The only problem is that you made too much noise with something as insignificant, at least for me. Shadowxfox (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"too much noise", Shadowxfox - maybe you read too loudly. The idea of this page is to have a discussion and hopefully come to some consensus, otherwise what is the point of having the page in the first place? Kiltpin (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiltpin: Is a move to Category:Jaguars in heraldry okay with you? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Kiltpin (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Category renamed. Ruthven (msg) 10:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over categorisation - No one will ever search for Panthera pardus - should be in panthers. Kiltpin (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as per Category:Panthera onca in heraldry - different continents, different species. In many heraldic cases there is a story, legend or symbolism behind and in such an underlying explanation of an image it without doubt matters, which species the depicted animal represents. When a panther features in African heraldry it certainly does not represent jaguar and vice versa. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have no wish to be rude, Miaow Miaow, but nobody cares. A panther is a panther. Heraldry is about the look, NOT about the genus names of things. It really does not matter. People will look at a shield and see a panther. They will not care about the genus. It will not make the slightest difference to their appreciation of the shield. Kiltpin (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:Panthers in heraldry is about a legendary creature known as a "panther" that has no resemblance to any real animal (including the cats known as "panthers"), so merging the categories would create confusion. Also, the common name for Panthera pardus is leopard, so this category ought to be renamed leopards in heraldry. Jarble (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiltpin: Is a move to Category:Leopards in heraldry okay with you? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Kiltpin (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Merged with Leopards in heraldry. Ruthven (msg) 10:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-name as Bivalves in heraldry, rather than Bivalvia. No one will ever search for bivalvia! Kiltpin (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the scientific name: Commons is for users of many languages (English being only the main working language). That is why categories for biology use scientific ("Latin") names as they are more language neutral, unambiguous and more easily recognizable for people from many countries. Therefore scientific names are helpful in keeping our contents horizontally linked through various fields of interest, not vertically (heraldry only, biology only etc). --Miaow Miaow (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scientific language is not appropriate for heraldry, which generally uses mediaeval/ancient vernacular terms. Lion, boar, etc. are not the scientific names. Many heraldic animals don't even exist in science: unicorn etc. Suggest more appropriate term: "sea shells in heraldry" which can contain sub-cats escallops, whelks (Shelly baronets) etc. & can be distinguished from "snail shells in heraldry". Suggestion of horizontally linking heraldic terms by use of Latin terms is a non-starter. Science has a historic usage of Latin terms, heraldry does not, but has its own words in each language. It would be a better suggestion to convert all heraldic terms to mediaeval French! (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

@Kiltpin and Lobsterthermidor: This category only contains one image. Can it safely be deleted? As far as I can see, the image contains no bivalvia, but if the need arose, an image could probably be safely put in Category:Seashells in heraldry. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Kiltpin (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Image moved and category deleted. Ruthven (msg) 10:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This category have to be redirected to Category:Turkish Air Force. But User:Foroa revert it. As we know, when we chose the name of category, we behave according to the name in English Wikipedia. As long as I known, User:Foroa also always behave so. In this case, en:Turkish Air Force & en:Category:Turkish Air Force are used in English Wikipedia. Takabeg (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think;

• Category:Air force of Turkey have to be redirected to Category:Turkish Air Force (en:Turkish Air Force)
• Category:Navy of Turkey have to be redirected to Category:Turkish Navy (en:Turkish Navy)
• Category:Sahil Güvenlik have to be redirected to Category:Turkish Coast Guard (en:Turkish Coast Guard)

Takabeg (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it to its original naming. Commons don't necessarily uses the names of the English Wikipedia. We avoid the thousands of categories such a Turkish singers, Turkish politicians, ... Just look at the other air forces in the by country category. Moreover, many countries got several names for their marine, air force, army in the course of history: all them fit better in a general "Air Force of ..." category. Please use move request before undertaking such important renamings. --Foroa (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitution in Turkish Army, Turkish Navy, Turkish Air Force etc. is different from one of en:Category:Turkish singers, en:Category:Turkish politicians etc.. I also feel some usage of the term "Turkish" such as Turkish singers, Turkish politicians may be considered as ethnical categories. So I avoid those names when I create new categories related with people from Turkey. But Turkish Army, Turkish Navy, Turkish Air Force etc. are proper nouns (names), just like Category:Hellenic Army, Category:Hellenic Navy, Category:Hellenic Air Force etc.. If we denies this fact, we will become extremists. "Turkish Stars" is also a proper name and we cannot change it into "Stars of Turkey" :) Thank you. .Takabeg (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of history, the air force of Turkey contained at least Ottoman Air Force and General Directorate of Air Forces, so this top level cat has to stay. If the current name en:Turkish Air Force is a formal official name or just another wikipedia style of translation needs to be seen and might become a subcategory. Turkish Navy is not necessarily a proper name, "Turkish Stars" probably is their commercial name. --Foroa (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have to use [[::Category:Turkish Air Force]] for images after 1949 (The Turkish Air Force) and to use Category:Military aviation of Turkey for images between 1923 (1920)-1949. In fact, there was no general of the Turkish Air Force before 1949, and leaders of military aviation of Turkey were generals of the Turkish Army (for example Category:Muzaffer Ergüder). Takabeg (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that, but since you reverted my changes to reinstate Air force of Turkey, I've got to revert to the previous situation. Anyway, air force of Turkey has to be interpreted in the broadest sense: it should contain all items related to military airborne activity in its complete history. A person with a picture of a Turkish military air plane from 1912 cannot necessarily know by whom it was owned or managed.

 Support I support this changes. Also I believe that Category:Gendarmerie of Turkey should be redirected to Category:Turkish Gendarmerie. We can see many examples of this such as Category:Ottoman Gendarmerie, Category:Romanian Gendarmerie, Category:Greek Gendarmerie... I explained additional reasons of this on this page in Turkish.--Reality006 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to Gendarmerie (Jandarma), according to Google books Ngram Viewer, Turkish Gendarmerie is common name of this organization. But I prefer to use titles in English Wikipedia automatically on the purpose of avoiding needless discussion in Commons in the case naming comventions. Because I believe we must consume our energy for uploading images not for such discussions. I recommend you (Reality006) to go to English Wikipedia to change the title en:Gendarmerie (Turkey) to Turkish Gendarmerie. If the tile would be changed, I will be able to support Category:Turkish Gendarmerie. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons naming convention if <Topic> <Qualifier> and can only be overridden if a formal other name exists. Wikipedia naming convention is often <Qualifier> <Topic>, which makes that en:wiki names are not necessarily the reference. To avoid all such discussions as we have to concentrate indeed on organising pictures, Commons tries to be more consistent and uniform in its naming and to avoid such discussions. --Foroa (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Foros, kept "Air force of Turkey", as many examples in Category:Air_force_by_country. Ruthven (msg) 14:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of a great part of the subcategories of Category:Aircraft by airline using the pattern Aircraft type (airline name) is wrong. Parenthesized disambiguators are not used to list subcriteria, but to choose a specific meaning for a homonym (e.g. Category:John Douglas (ship), Category:John Douglas (architect), …). The aircraft by airline subcategories should use a pattern of e.g. Category:British Airways Boeing 777. Mormegil (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly too late for this - whoever did the entire Airbus aircraft fleet has used the format Airbus A319 (Easyjet) etc, and this has been replicated throughout to a large extent - massive job to change all this (whether right or wrong). Ardfern (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion before and I agree. Initially I started categorising as you have suggested. To my mind though it was more important to standardise it. If you wish to change it you will need a bot and a lot of time. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fall-out from the daft categorisation by registration scheme, before that images were cat by type and also by airline which made finding images easier. When all the images were moved into registration cats (which has very little value as a search tool for the average user) the type and airline cats were removed. So rather than creating all these hybrid cats cant we just go back to the old days when each image was cat by type and by operator. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partly agree. Commons name should be Category:Boeing 777 of British Airways (topic - qualifier), but the current form is better than the current Category:British Airways Boeing 777 form. --Foroa (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Foroa, the current format can be easily moved to the "Manufaturer+type" of "airline" scheme with the assistance of a bot.--FAEP (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the scheme of Category:Boeing 777 of British Airways too. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The naming of these subcats should be, e.g for Category:Tupolev aircraft by airline: Category:Tupolev aircraft of Aeroflot and not Category:Tupolev aircraft (Aeroflot), Category:Tupolev aircraft of Vladivostok Air and not Category:Tupolev aircraft (Vladivostok Air), parentheses are ill-used here. Orrlingtalk 22:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As i know, no company have a name "... Airline" but a usual name is "... Airlines". An airline is a line of air transport. When any air transport operator is called "Airlines" that's because it operates a group of airlines. Am I mistaken?

• The current content of Category:Aircraft by airline move to Category:Aircraft by operator by manufacturer
• The current category Category:Aircraft of airlines move to Category:Aircraft by operator
• Move Category:Aircraft cabins by airline from Category:Aircraft by airline to Category:Aircraft by operator (and rename to Category:Aircraft cabins by operator) --ŠJů (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mormegil, ŠJů, Mtaylor848, Ardfern: This category has been redirected to Category:Aircraft by operator since December 2013. Can we close this discussion or does it require further comment? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the parent category was not the main point. The main point is that e.g. Category:Airbus A320 (All Nippon Airways) should be Category:Airbus A320 of All Nippon Airways instead. But we don’t need further comments, the discussion can be closed. AFAICS, ±everyone agrees the current state is bad and the proposed naming would be better. However, given the huge number of existing categories, it would need a lot of time and effort (and a bot), so that’s what we need now, I guess. --Mormegil (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any reason to close discussion if there is agreement but the action hasn't been taken. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the skill to change all these with a bot, but maybe someone else will. For clarity, the consensus is:

• All sub-categories of format Category:Manufacturer X Type Y (Airline Z) -> Category:Manufacturer X Type Y of Airline Z

Anyone want to put in this effort? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: This would be an enormous amount of work to do manually. I imagine it would be a lot of work to do even with the help of a bot, but if you have time, it would be a great help. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. @Themightyquill, Mormegil, Ardfern, ŠJů, Mtaylor848, Foroa, and FAEP: Can you please check whether Category:Aircraft of British Midland Airways and Category:Aircraft of Bmi can be merged (and how)? There are as well Category:Aircraft of BMI Regional and Category:Aircraft of Bmibaby in the same family. --Ruthven (msg) 23:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• While I can understand the reasoning for changing the cat structure to Manufacturer X Type Y of Airline Z, I do feel it is madness to try change the hundreds of thousands of aircraft entries just for 'correctness'. Certainly it could not be done without a bot (and I have no skills there). Ardfern (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• With regard to the issue of merging airlines as in the Bmi examples above, I am opposed to it as it simply makes the job of finding aircraft of specific airlines more difficult. BMI Regional and Bmibaby are separate airlines and should not be mashed together making it impossible to see their individual fleets. Recently I split out aircraft for SriLankan Airlines and Air Lanka specifically, for example, for just that purpose. Previous to that Air Lanka aircraft could only be found by searching through masses of SriLankan Airlines aircraft. This is not the same as Wikipedia where airlines are often, but not always, merged, here we surely want to see individual fleets and make them easy for researchers etc to find. Ardfern (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also question the priority of making such a massive, essentially cosmetic, change, in a situation where there remain over 140,000 files in Category:Aviation files (check needed) which still require categorisation. I would suggest work might be better concentrated in such areas. Ardfern (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ardfern: there is not a priority, as we waited 4 years to implement that. However, the massive renaming already started and will end in a couple of days; we will not leave it half way. We will not touch BMI Regional and Bmibaby then (thanks for your remarks), but check Category:Aircraft of British Midland Airways and Category:Aircraft of Bmi please. It seems they are the same company, with subcategories mixing both names, which is confusing. As I'm not an expert, I prefer to ask before proceding. --Ruthven (msg) 10:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok. Will check out the British Midland/Bmi issue shortly Ardfern (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • re British Midland/Bmi, files sorted into Category:British Midland Airways (1964-1985), Category:British Midland (1985-2001) and Category:Bmi (2001-2012). Each had quite different liveries/logos and fleet composition. Now each can be found. Ardfern (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I've bumped on "DHL", which is sometimes called "DHL Aviation". What uniform name should we use, given that in 2012 the company has changed its name in "Astar Air Cargo"? --Ruthven (msg) 17:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Applied consent; DHL became DHL Aviation, while waiting a little more to solve the British Midland/Bmi names. NB: There are several airlines that are not listed in Aircraft by operator, e.g. Category:Air Transat; finding them all can take some time (and a little help would be appreciated) Ruthven (msg) 10:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City refers to various things in China ("county-level", "prefecture-level" division, and even special administrative status, see en:Administrative divisions of the People's Republic of China). Category names should indicate which level we are referring to. Zolo (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the case in many countries, why they are not used in several countries. --Foroa (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I can replace them ? Actually I am not sure what the current loggic is. There is a Category:Categories of the United States by city but not a Category:Categories of France by city, while it seems much easier to define a city in France than in the United States. --Zolo (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

en:City is a definition that is very country specific, mostly discriminating places on some criterion, often related to its size, but often too it is a honorary title. In many countries, including France, it is not usable because there is no official definition of the city, and exclude places that might be historically or in terms of heritage much more important, but they don't have the right to call themselves city. If you want to replace them, you better make a CFD or so that includes a number of related categories. Alternatively, you document what is understood by cities in China in Commons. --Foroa (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cities seems to refer to "provincial-cities" here, but that may just be because they are smaller, and thus more likely to get categories. I have made a CFD for Category:Cities in China, that actually is is a parent of thic category and may well be the most problematic case.

Actually there is more or less a official definition of city in France ([2]), but I agree this would not be a very useful to use it. I do not think there is any national of definition of "city" in the United States, so I am a bit skeptical about Category:Categories of the United States by city, but ok that is a different topic. --Zolo (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Consensus seems to be that the term city is misapplied here. Someone should change the sub-categories to a better name, then this category can be deleted. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:Travaux de la branche vers Vieux-Condé de la ligne B du tramway de Valenciennes en septembre 2012.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Travaux de la branche vers Vieux-Condé de la ligne B du tramway de Valenciennes en décembre 2012.

This category name should be translated into English per the language principle of Commons Commons:Language policy 178.2.49.208 19:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C'est une recommandation, et non une obligation. La majorité des personnes qui vont consulter ce travail sont bel et bien des francophones. D'autre part, je trouve très mal venu qu'une IP vienne faire cette demande. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such category has to be in English. Please suggest a proper name in English. Thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mon anglais n'est pas assez bon pour que je puisse traduire le titre de la catégorie, et de toute manière, je vais retourner photographier l'évolution des travaux du tramway dans les mois à venir, je mettrais systématiquement un titre en français. Ça ne sert donc à rien de m'imposer quelque chose contre mon gré. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IT is about the public works of a tramway Line 2 in Valenciennes. SO perhaps Category:Valenciennes tram line B by date? Because the subkject is here the different time and progression of work. If i understand...very strange, but ok. Carolus (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Travaux de la branche vers Vieux-Condé de la ligne B du tramway de Valenciennes en décembre 2012. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made-up name. See long discussion at en:Talk:Straight-two_engine

"Straight-two" is an unpopular compromise name for the en:WP article describing the top level of two-cylinder single-bank IC engines. At Commons, see Category:Straight-two engines. No-one likes this name, but it seems to be the "least broken" name that isn't overlapping some other problem name, so we're grudgingly stuck with it.

This category though is not that top level category. Instead they're specifically transverse twin motorcycle engines. These (see en:WP) are well referenced under the name "parallel twin", i.e. Category:Parallel-twin motorcycle engines. Despite there being a category for this, under that name, Biker Biker ([3]) has seen fit to depopulate that category twice today and redirect it. That appears to be a continuation of a problem at en:WP, which at root is caused because en:WP refuses to split the motorcycle and non-motorcycle engines.

• If motorcycle and non-motorcycle engines are combined (as at en:WP), then "straight-two" is about the best name so far offered.

• If motorcycle and non-motorcycle engines are separated (which is easily and already done at Commons), then the motorcycling world just doesn't use the term "straight two" at all, and instead favours "parallel twin". As the two groups are separated, then unlike en:WP, there is no conflict here.

There is one viewpoint (fairly widely held, although WP:RS exist to show it's over-specific), that "parallel twin" is reserved for a narrower group of 360° four-stroke transverse twin engines (a technical distinction, but a notable group in its own right). The Parallel-twin motorcycle engines category was populated with these today, before Biker Biker emptied it. Even if Commons interpretation is to take the most narrow use of "parallel twin", then this category was correctly populated as a sub-cat of straight-two engines.

Inline (i.e. longitudinal, rather than transverse) motorcycle engines are an exceptional, thus noteworthy, separate case. They belong in their own category.

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing the category name to Category:Straight-twin motorcycle engines and to include media on "in-line" straight-twins as well as "parallel" straight-twins. SamBlob (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment on "-two" vs. "-twin". I don't even object to this name being used as a meta-category containing only the other motorcycle twins. However we shouldn't use it to contain images: they belong in either parallel-twin or transverse-twin (if transverse), or longitudinal-twin (possibly inline-twin) it longitudinal. These are far better names than "straight-" and (unlike en:WP) there is no reason at all why we have to suffer this clumsy "straight-" name at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The wikipedia article has now been moved to en:Straight-twin engine if that makes any different to anyone. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Your suggestion made sense to me, so I create Category:Longitudinal-twin motorcycle engines, Category:Parallel-twin motorcycle engines, and Category:Transverse-twin motorcycle engines, then tried to sort the images accordingly. This is definitely not my area of expertise, though, so please check over my edits. Several of the images I wasn't sure how to categorize, so if you could take a list at those remaining in Category:Straight-two motorcycle engines that would also be a great help. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The two cats still need definitions clearly adding though - it matters less what the definitions are, so long as they match the names chosen.

If there are two cats for transverse engines, then it makes sense for one to be for 360° firing, one as a supercat for the non-360° engines. I'd be happy with "parallel" and "transverse" (but they would need the scope stated), others might want to call both transverse, or both parallel and place "360° firing" somewhere into one name. I'm not getting involved with that.

Why though are the Norton Commandos (maybe the best known 360° firing parallel twin engine) in the cat that's obviously trying to be for the non-360° firing group? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: If there are files in the wrong category, it's because I didn't know what I was doing when I sorted them (and still don't). I wasn't trying to make any category for the non-360° firing group, I was just going by the descriptions on the wikipedia pages. If you add category definitions, it will help clear things up for others. If others disagree and you don't really care that much, they might someday change the definitions, but the categories will still have precise definitions. If you want to change the category names to be more precise, that's fine with me too. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as resolved for now. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This structure is a bit odd. Locations generally don't have subcategories for specific ships. The usual approach would be to group them in some other way. --  Docu  at 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? Badzil (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several possible solution. It could by ship type or by type of view (in port, at sea, etc.).

The easiest solution would be to place them in ship specific categories and the main Category:Ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012.

In parallel, we could the place them in a gallery.

The event being over, the current structure isn't necessarily needed any more to sort ships easily. --  Docu  at 19:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

1. First aval, it is not a "location" but an international event.
2. The "usual approach" to group them in categories like "sailing ships", "ships in port", etc.. is still possible in addition.
3. Even if the event is now finished, there's still a lot of job to do to categorize pictures and identify boats. The category by ships are useful for that. The "easiest" way to put all pictures in only one cat and to add a cat for the ships identified are NOT efficient, because most of people didn't know how to find a picture in TWO categories.
4. Even if the structure is "a bit odd", there were a lot of job in it to do, and i don't see the purpose to erase this work without a more efficient way to categorise.

I hope you will understand my arguments, and agree with them. ---Strogoff- ^(talk) 18:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we'd loose anything (I surely wouldn't want that). It would just integrate better into the current structure (even more work went into that). Display and navigation for Brest 2012 would still be possible.

The easiest way to manage non identified ships would be to create a maintenance category Category:Unidentified ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012 and add images in there.

I will try to build a sample gallery. --  Docu  at 06:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very sure what to do. It's surely not perfect, but I rather keep the current structure (except if someone find a better way to do it).

It's true that's a bit odd but not so unusual, eg. Category:Michael Phelps at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a ship there, Vigneron. We need to find a way that integrates the images into the current structure for ships while providing a good overview for user looking through Brest 2012. We wouldn't want to have a category structure just for Brest 2012 or every other event. --  Docu  at 06:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Phelps is not a ship (although…), but does it matter? The structures exist for Olympics, why not for the Tonnerres ? The thing is there more than 2000 files for the Tonnerres (and there will be more in the days/weeks to come). So we *have to* do subcategories. There is a lot of ships at the Tonnerres, so it's logical to do subcategories by ship. Then, there is a lot of subcategories by ships (105 !), so it's also logical to an intercategory Category:Ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012. Maybe the name could be change for something like Category:Tonnerres de Brest 2012 ships (like Category:2008 Summer Olympics swimmers), but the idea seems legit to me. Plus, in Category:Ships by location there is a lot of categories for ships (plural) by locations, why not create categories for ship (singular) by locations?

Like I said, if you have a better way to categorize this files, don't hesitate to share it with us. Like I said, it's maybe not the best way, but if it's the only one it's de facto the best one.

Is there an other nautic events with 2000+ files? (I can't even find a meta-category for nautic events, only Category:Sailing events wich is pretty empty…). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if people category are a good sample or point of comparison of how things should be. I'm not sure they have much overall consistency, at least, other than some basics.

Size as such doesn't matter that much. You also made Category:Tonnerres de Brest 2012 - Total.

What is important is that the new ship categories fit into the existing ship categories, categories we spend a lot of time to get improve and build consistently.

Looking at Category:A758 Beautemps-Beaupré (ship, 2002) you will notice that it's pretty empty and gives no images of the ship. Category:Kathleen and May (ship, 1900) is even worse as images are split between the main category and some other category, despite the later isn't a subdivision of the topic as such and makes it difficult to get a good view of the ship.

Sample solution:

1. Move the content of Category:A758 Beautemps-Beaupré at Tonnerres de Brest 2012 to Category:A758 Beautemps-Beaupré (ship, 2002)
2. Add a copy to Category:Naval ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012 or Category:Ships in port at Tonnerres de Brest 2012
3. Add an index to Ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012 (sample done)
4. Add images of Category:A758 Beautemps-Beaupré at Tonnerres de Brest 2012 to other relevant subcategories of Category:Ships

Steps #1 and #3 can be done automatically, thus nothing gets lost. --  Docu  at 21:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure of anything either but the current structures seems the best to me. People and ships have lot of things in common : they are born, they move, they change, etc. Michael Phelps is not the same man at Beijing 2008 or at London 2012, that's why there is two categories. The Etoile du Roy is not the same ship at Brest 2008 or at the Tonnerres 2012.

Size doens't matter much but number of files does. I find easier to navigate through clear precise categories rather than through a few number of big categories.

The A758 Beautemps-Beaupré or the Kathleen and May are maybe not good examples. Etoile du Roy, Sedov or Kaliningrad are better examples.

I don’t see why splitting is a bad thing. Do you want to merge all the ships in Category:Ships? Certainly not, we need to split it. Maybe we split a little too much (eg. Category:Tonnerres de Brest 2012 - Iris is maybe not needed if there will be only one file). For me, when there is more than 200 files in a category, people don't go to the second page.

Your sample don't seems a good idea. There is already 2400+ files and rising and there was 1094 ships at the Tonnerres. Ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012 is not a bad idea in itself but I'm pretty sure the page will be heavy and useless very quick.

My idea of a solution : 1. wait until all the files are upload. 2. see which category is empty inside a near empty category (like Iris right now) and merge them. 3. retalk then what to do of the other categories.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you have a lot of files, breaking them down by location isn't that useful for ships. In general, it's better to refine this by topic. For people, I agree, frequently there isn't much more to be done than dividing it by year.

There is not hurry though, we can wait till the upload is completed. --  Docu  at 19:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are still a few to come, it might be worth creating a custom Upload Wizard including the main list of vessels present. It could be re-used for other events. Somehow I thought such custom wizards could be set up. --  Docu  at 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't seem to exist yet. See Bugzilla:38866. --  Docu  at 20:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that someone renamed some of the subcategories. This now looks messy as no subcategory is consistent with the naming convention for ships. --  Docu  at 05:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are the renamed categories inconsistent with "the naming convention for ships"? Badzil (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, since the discussion has been dead for nearly 5 years and there was no consensus for change. --ghouston (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This site is usually referred to as Boston Spa, not as Thorp Arch. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that you mean that it should be moved to Category:British Library, Boston Spa.

Yes, sorry - I'm not very used to Commons CFD :-). The category should be renamed as above. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The site is not actually in Boston Spa though. It has an LS23 postcode, but anyone with any local knowledge knows how inaccurate 'Boston Spa' as a location is (being as it is a not at all in or near Boston Spa). Many businesses in this area describe themselves as being in the neighbouring town of Wetherby but this too is incorrect. I would resist this move as the name, even if it is used by the BL is extremely misleading. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Belgium was the master of surrealisme. right|thumb --Foroa (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a map, I do see what you mean. However, in my experience as a librarian, this is the way the site is widely known to the outside world - long before I came to the BL, I used to talk about ordering books "from Boston Spa", and so on. I'd never heard a reference to "Thorp Arch" before today, despite having been to the site, and seeing the category name I actually thought it might be one of the old sites in north London! It may be technically correct, but it's certainly not a name anyone not from the immediate local area is likely to look for.

I should note that I'm not trying to say "please correct to the official name" as a BL representative - I was just surprised to see this while I was doing some other tidying, and hadn't realised there might be any contention. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a category redirect at Category:British Library, Boston Spa. Is that sufficient? If so, it might also make sense to add a reference to "Boston Spa" in the Category:British Library, Thorp Arch description. Would you like to do so, Andrew Gray? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Cross-redirecting is a good idea, but to be honest, the other way around would make more sense - "Boston Spa" is unambiguously the name used for the site both within the BL and within the broader library community. It's certainly on the Thorp Arch estate (as the BL itself acknowledges), but "British Library, Thorp Arch" is a name not really in use outside of Commons. Using the generally accepted name as the default and redirecting from the unusual if 'technically correct' variant would be better than insisting on the unusual one. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Also: Themightyquill thanks for cleaning out old CFDs! I'd completely forgotten about this...) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I don't believe you, Andrew Gray but I did a quick google search and couldn't find any evidence of either name being used, aside from references to Boston Spa Reading Room. Is that what we're talking about? Can you point me at a website where Boston Spa is used as a name? Maybe the way it is used will help inspire some solution. Either way, I can totally understand your argument about using the location's proper name, but Mtaylor848's concern seems valid too. The name Category:British Library, Boston Spa suggests not a formal name but a formal name and an actual location, which is misleading. Those not familiar with the library might well try to move it, incorrectly, to Category:Buildings in Boston Spa. What about Category:British Library, Boston Spa (Thorp Arch) or something like that? Is that too long? Thanks for your continued patience and input. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the boundaries on OpenStreetMap, it's so far from Boston Spa that's it's not even in Thorp Arch, but in an area called Walton [4]. It's in the top of the grey area that's marked as "Thorp Arch Estate" and shows up if you zoom in. The British Library calls it Boston Spa though [5]. I suggest calling it Category:British Library, Boston Spa and mentioning its location in the description. --ghouston (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, this discussion has been open way too long for a category with 3 files and a minor naming issue. I'll just move it to Category:British Library, Boston Spa (Thorp Arch Estate). --ghouston (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cities is not a clear term at all it can refer to a en:Prefecture-level city or a en:County-level city, or to anything that "feels" like a city (and that is no tightky related to administrative status) .

I think it woud be better to have "prefecture-level divisions" and "district-level divisions" categories. I do not think it is useful to have categories for "prefecture-level cities" only, that are a subsets of "prefecture-level divisions (I know I created such categories before). Adminstrative status change fairly frequently, and do not seem terribly relevant for a media repository anyway.--Zolo (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Zolo (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "city" fits for all that has a

市

(Shi) after its proper name, whereas prefecture-level divisions may also be prefectures, district-level divisions may be districts as well, so prefecture-level cities are the intersection of prefecture-level divisions and cities. -- Hämbörger (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but the categorization by hierearchical level (province - prefecture - county) is cleaner, and much easier to deal with. We might have an additional system for "cities", but it means that we should have two parallel categorization systems, which would makes things more complicated, without any obvious benefit. China-related files are often very badly categorized right now, and we should try to make maintenance as straightforward as possible. Using "cities" may not be the best way to do that. Most Common users presumably do not know much about Chinese administration, and the way it works is not obvious at first sight, and make things look rather confuse (a a 市 may be part of another 市, some county centers may look like cities etc.). --Zolo (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make your self an illusion. The more complex a category structure gets, the less it is respected, especially if the country structure is not stable or rather unknown (and not documented as in this case). And obviously, many items will be categorised in the hundreds of "xxx by city" categories. --Foroa (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hämbörger, sorry I replied a bit hastily, the city category is the interstection of "cities" and various levels of administrative divisions, not just prefectures. That is what makes it messy.

Foroa, the Province - (prefecture) - county is the structure for all of China (sometimes counties change, and sometimes files are not categorized by county, but given the a county is already 100s of 1000s people, it sounds hard to do without it. At least we have something ressembling a tidy tree, which we cannot have if we use "city" categories. --Zolo (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Category:Cities by country is widely used. If this is not a useful category for China, I suggest the category be kept as a metacat with subcats according to national definitions. -- Infrogmation (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hämbörger, Zolo, and Infrogmation: I'm not sure how this is workable. Because smaller cities like Category:Xinzheng are also in cities like Category:Zhengzhou, properly filling Category:Cities in China or even Category:Cities in Henan would create a situation where many categories lik Category:Xinzheng would be the child and the grandchild (via Category:Zhengzhou of Category:Cities in China. Maybe it's best that we stick with Category:Prefecture-level divisions of Henan and Category:County-level divisions of Henan ? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: we have Cities in the United States although a lot of municipalities in its category tree are towns, not cities. In Italy Rome is a comune (municipality) with the status as city and Albano is a comune without such status but administratively they are on the same level. Most probably if we changed every occurrence of the term "city", "town" and similar in "municipality" (briefly, anything which head of government is a Mayor or a Burgmeister) we wouldn't be doing a gross mistake but I don't see the reaon for doing so. We can as well deal with "city" everytime it's about an administrative entity which head is a Mayor. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Category:Cities in China can be useful, since it's apparently well-defined which places are cities, and enwiki has a list at en:List of cities in China. Possibilities to make it more useful would be to have a subcategory Category:Cities in China (flat list) to list them all without regards to how they are nested, and/or create the three categories Category:Provincial-level cities in China, Category:Prefecture-level cities in China and Category:County-level cities in China. --ghouston (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes good sense, Ghouston. Unless anyone is opposed, I'd say keeping the category but dividing it into a flat list subcategory as well as size-based subcategories is the way to go. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Category:Cities in China (flat list) as well as Category:Cities in China by type with Category:County-level cities in China, Category:Municipalities in China (Province-Level), and Category:Prefecture-level cities in China. The former hasn't been filled with all 300+ entries yet, but that can be done slowly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 September 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]