Brudern house was demolished in 1908. And after the Belvárosi Takarékpénztár built own HQ. That is now the Párizsi udvar and NOT only the passage. Globetrotter19 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Párizsi udvar discussion page: Alapvető probléma van a lappal, mégpedig az, hogy Brudern-házként hivatkozik a jelenleg is álló Ferenciek tere 10. számú házára./Ez azért is furcsa, mert a szöveg közben tisztán és érthetően leírja, hogy az 1817-ben megépített épület építtetője volt Brudern József, amelyet aztán 1908-ban lebontott a Belvárosi Takarékpénztár Rt, és felépítette a telken saját szék-, és bérházát. ~Basic problem with the page. the text clearly and comprehensively describes that the builder of the building, built in 1817, was József Brudern, who was demolished in 1908 by the Downtown Savings Bank and built his own headquarters and tenement
So my guess the best solution move all Brudern House content to Category:Párizsi udvar. This is the commonly name of its building..., but in fact it is now the Párisi Udvar Hotel Budapest but my guess the Párizsi udvar is ok.
About the arcade or passage. It is not really not clear to me because the Párizsi udvar articel first part has next sentence 'Párizsi udvar...földszinti, belső része a Párizsi udvar' ~the Párizsi udvar...ground floor, inner part is the Párizsi udvar.... What???? So your question the answer my guess better let to all pics in the Category:Párizsi udvar instead create Category:Párizsi udvar arcade. It is not perfect but maybe this is the best, till the articel not cleared. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support Globetrotters proposal, that we should move all the content of the category Brudern House to Párizsi udvar. There is no more Brudern House since beginning of 20th century. See an evidence in the link. "... A Brudern-ház fénye idővel fénye megkopott. 1883-ban egy belvárosi szabályozás során a Kígyó utcában egy részét már elbontották, a 20. század elején pedig az egész épület eltűnt, hogy helyet adjon a Belvárosi Takarékpénztár Rt. vadonatúj székházának. ..." (I corrected, striked throw the mistake, duplicated word "fénye".) In english something like "The shine of the Brudern house has faded over time. In 1883, part of it was demolished in Snake Street during a downtown regulation, and in the early 20th century the entire building was removed to make way for the brand new headquarters of the Downtown Savings Bank Corporation" -- ato (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The AA" is the trade name of the company. AA plc is already obsolete as the legal name is AA Ltd now. The problem with the legal name is that it will change as ownership and corporate structure fluctuates over time. Trade names can change too, but in general are a bit more stable, so I would go with "The AA" in this case (incidentally, enwiki has gone the same way now).
Yes I agree per w:WP:DIFFCAPS and Commons:Category redirects#Inappropriate uses item 2 apply otherwise readers will need 3 clicks as a category redirect requires a click anyway. Both the cap and the singular makes it more likely a proper noun is intended. With respect to the other proposal to more the company, "The AA" may be too ambiguous but its likely the other uses of "Automobile Association" are also ambiguous with the current title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason to think Category:Steps is 'redundant'. Stairs and staircases normally include a large number of steps (I would think Category:Stairs should be a sub-category of Category:Steps). There are plenty of instances where a small number of steps (or a single step) exist which couldn't be described as a staircase or stairs. In British English there are 'door steps' (in front of a door) and 'stepping stones' (to cross a river) which could also be categrised here. Presumably Category:Steps (stair units) exists to include details or close ups of a small number of steps in a staircase? Whichever way you look at it, certainly not a redundant category. Sionk (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Sionk: I see here some redundancy. If we have "stairs" for the whole staircases and stairways, then "steps" should be just for single steps and "steps (stair units)" is redundant. However, all the category names are ambiguous and seduce to misscategorization. That's why the included photos are a mix in all these root categories and some country-level subcategories don't correspond to their root category. There is a lot of categorization work to be done here. Maybe, "steps" should be merged to "steps (stair units)" which has more unambiguous name.
I have also problem to distinguish "outside" stairs from other "outdoor" stairs (missing category) and stairways - "staircases" are defined as indoor staircases at the top of the cateogory page, but what with outside and outdoor ramp/flight constructions? What is the distinction between flight of stairs and stair ramps? Don't we have the category "stair ramps" for two different meanings? Etc. Maybe, we should create some typology page as a guideline for categorization of stairs, and possibly revise and correct the current categorization tree. --ŠJů (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC) @Ipoellet: --ŠJů (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any rationale for merging "Steps" to "Steps (stair units)" because, as I've already said, not all steps are part of a stair or staircase. I wouldn't miss the "Steps (stair units)" category if it was disipated into the "Steps" or "stairs" or "stair component" categories - there's not much content anyway.
The other variations of stairs and staircases I can understand. There are already explanations of the category tree at the top of the main categories. Sionk (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: and all : No, category:stairs should NOT be a sub-category of category:steps. In the current matter 1. — steps (objects) refers to 1.1. — single low objects or architectural elements, generally with a plane (flat) surface, allowing people to step on and raise themselves in a more elevated/advantageous position (expl. step stools) ; 1.2. — sets of few steps allowing the circulation from one degree to another (expl. altar steps, door steps...). They are generally low (only slightly raising) and deprived of landings and railings (balusters) but somtimes equipped with stair handrails. Note : These steps are distinct to stairs (stair flights). See → Category:Steps 2. — series of numerous steps form a stair flight (use risers for the vertical faces of a stair step, threads for the horizontal parts, winders for the threads of curved/bended/turned stairs (stairways) ; the lowest part of a stair flight is the bottom stair step, the highest riser supports the stair landing. Note : These steps are components of stairs (stair flights). See → Category:Steps (stair units).
@Themightyquill: and all : 3. → steps (movement) refers to the simple complete movement of raising one foot and putting it down in another spot as in walking (American Heritage Dictionnary of the english language), i.e. the action of making one step forwards, aside or backwards, or a dance step, all executed on a plane surface. Footsteps (designates also the length of a step movement) and stepping stones (requiring a step by step movement) are named after those. For footsteps in the mud see the adequat → Category:Footprints. Anyway, that is not the subject of the current question (about steps & stairs) but a new question (about step movements on plane surfaces) for a new thread if required. I add that I strongly oppose having another new step category for that purpose (not enough files available and more confusion among the steps).
@ŠJů: and all : 1° please see above for the redundance question, 2° Misscategorizations : I agree, there are lots (to many) of them, due to the lack of correct and clear category definitions. The fact is that the contributors of the multilingual commons happen to be photographers and not linguists nor translaters, nor architects. Those who simply do not know the correct english names or translate false friends choose consequently bad file names (then categorized by bots !). One way to remedy the situation would be to give on top of the category the appropriate translation along with the accurate (sourced) definition. 2° Other questions : regarding the missing Category:Outdoor stairs (redirected in 2016 to Category:Outside stairs by a japanese non-native english speaker) and the presumely erroneous definition on top of the Category:Stairways please open a new thread under the affected category. 3° For the distinction stairs#stair ramps see the degrees of increase on the image (right). 3° In case a sub-category of stairs-by-country does not correspond to it's category root, it should IMO be redirected to category:stairs by country or to the appropriate indoor/outdoor stairs by country category. --Bohème (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that Category:Steps (objects) and Category:Steps (movement) shouhld be created? That might be a sensible progression. But I can't see how anyone could seriously prescribe to other people what the everyday word "Steps" means. At the end of the day, step ladders, stepping stones and stairs (multiple steps) are all step-related. Sionk (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Sionk: , thanks for your message. No, that's not what I suggested. See my statement above : I add that I strongly oppose having another new step category for that purpose (steps movement). The red colour was just a simple way to signalize the difference between Steps (stair units) and steps (movement) and my statement in response to @Themightyquill: that footsteps and stepping stones do definitely not belong to the stair unit category. Sorry if that was not clear. Commons has also categories step streets in NY City (beside ladder streets in Hong Kong and street stairs in Paris and elsewhere, the latter sub-cat of street furniture !?).
Can they please have all one common parent category (or at least be in the same category structure) and get clear definitions? --JopkeB (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have taken pictures of severals of thoses barriers mainly in France. There are at least two differents kinds. This one [1] is designed to stop cars but pedestrians and cyclists can pass. And this kind [2] is designed to prevent also cyclists from passing exept if they are on foot and pushing their bike next to them. It would be interesting to have two differents categories for those two types. As to the exact name of the categories, I am not fluent enough in english to tell which is best. Regards. Lionel Allorge (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A "Beischlagwange" as an architectural detail is not a stair. Its actualy a decorative stone slab like a long ledger stone, but not as wide as a ledger and little bit higher. Usually there is/was one on each side of the entrance to a house and a stoop could be in between.--Kresspahl (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This category is not really about the play, it is about the plaque in Berlin where the quote from the play is displayed. The content is identical between these two categories, so merge seems reasonable.
I had come across this category three years ago when adding some pictures by me to the new Zeugma museum category. During the last week I have been organizing the categories of that museum, creating categories for individual mosaics and adding hundreds more pictures I had in store. By accident I took another look at this, discussed, category and mainly am worried about the low quality of the pictures. Many are unsharp, almost all have discoloration due to artificial light. A very few, maybe 5 or 6, might be moved to relevant new categories, but would not improve on what is already there. So renaming is not the main issue, but the content is, as someone might, in my mind erroneously, add the pictures to much better existing categories. If it were up to me I’d delete the whole bunch. Or rename it to something like “Poor pictures of mosaics in the Archaeological Museum in 2007”. I suppose the “poor” would not be accepted. I have repeatedly tried to get utterly bad pictures deleted, and people, after discussion, decided to keep them. Quality seems to be the last of the worries in Commons.
I wanted to delete this category from categories it is in now, like “Zeugma Mosaic Museum (Gaziantep)” and “Ancient Roman mosaics in Turkey” (where it’s an eyesore) as I am afraid people would see that as meddling with a category under discussion. But I hope the discussion will be brought to an end, it has been quiet for too long. Dosseman (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, when I first encountered Category:Listed walls I assumed it meant leaning walls, and similarly I would have assumed "listed" structures meant leaning structures. IMO these categories should be renamed so they can be readily understood -- from the titles alone -- by English speakers outside the UK. I don't have an opinion about the best way to do that. Lambtron (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listed means it's officially listed as a monument, as in every "listed" category - see "cultural heritage monuments", etc. --DarwinAhoy!21:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: As said, not all "cultural heritage monuments" are officially listed as a monuments (see here what it means). Many are part of inventories kept at country level (SIPA), municipal (Lisbon list of buildings of municipal interest), published books (Porto Santo), etc.. Initially we were using "classified" for the official ones, but since the word has double meaning ("secret") and "listed" also made sense - even more sense, probably - I and others have been using it over "classified". But the vast category of "cultural heritage monuments" is not appropriate for that, since (at least according to its general use) it covers much more than the officially listed ones.--DarwinAhoy!20:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn: Please note, however, that Category:Listed structures is a subcategory of Category:Cultural heritage monuments, not a parent category -- so commons is still categorizing all "listed structures" as monuments. It's being used here as a general term to provide simplified base category structure applying to the whole world. By my google translate reading, the Portuguese page you mentioned seems to be separating "Monumento Nacional" from other sites, but it's common here to subdivide "Cultural heritage monuments" into different subcategories based on local schemes (e.g. buildings, artworks, archaeological sites, etc, but also municipal, regional and national lists). - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: National monuments here in Portugal are separated only in terms of tutor institution. They are a class or listing exactly in the same way as the other official types of listings. A classification or listing usually implies some kind of protection. Apart from those, there are a number of other inventories and lists of monuments and cultural heritage, which signal they exist, without conferring inherent protection. All of that is cultural heritage. So yes, listings or classifications should always be a subset of the general cultural heritage category.--DarwinAhoy!14:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and DarwIn: There are several points why the category names of "listed" structures may be problematic. There can be various types of lists, from a legally effective declaration of protection to various types of research lists without legal effect, and, of course, there are also purely administrative and registration lists, which do not necessarily mean anything about heritage value (in this sense, all property is listed somewhere). The word "listed" is not generally unambiguous without further explanation, and may not be applicable to all countries outside Britain.
As for categorization logic, heritage monuments can in principle be divided into movable and immovable. "Immovable monuments" are basically synonymous with "listed structures" in our sense. However, the main purpose of this categorization tree are the subcategories, which classify heritage monuments according to the type of structure / object. Names like Category:Listed bridges in Portugal are abbreviation, so that complicated compound names like Cultural heritage monuments in Norway (bridges) do not have to be used. If the word "listed" was not clear enough and understood worldwide, we would have to replace it with a more specific term. The Norwegian names in these categories are clearer, but their syntax is not entirely standard for Commons.--ŠJů (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů In the context of Portugal and Brazil, which are the ones I know better, it is meant to categorize items that are inventoried with the aim of obtaining some kind of protection due to its cultural value (often they have no actual protection, it's kind of a signalization). It includes, but expants the official country classifications or listings, which are often quite limited (and sometimes entirely absent, in some municipalities). DarwinAhoy!09:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need for categories specifically of 'notable' subjects, identified rooms can be properly categorized normally by type, building, etc. If there are named rooms they can be indexed under Category:Rooms by name (not sure if there are enough to warrant this category though). For now, we can eliminate "Individual rooms".
I was not sure if this category was just for images of single instruments by themselves, or another attempt at grouping 'notable' instruments, but it is certainly not limited to the former, nor do we need the later, so this can just be upmerged at this point and sorted into subs as it makes sense.
We need this type of category to efficiently categorize the musical instruments category by its 'attribution', as a conclusion based on the long years experience categorizing the several ten thousands of media about musical instruments. If you know more efficient, more reasonable sub-categorization schemes proved by experiences, please suggest it. We welcome reasonable suggestions! --Clusternote (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Clusternote: Those sound like reasonable and valuable reasons for categorization, so yes, we should definitely get them organized in a way that really homes in on that mission clearly. So let's look at each in turn:
Instruments built by a notable builder:Category:Musical instruments by builder with contents in the form "Category:Musical instruments by builder" under it should do this nicely. If I was looking for an instrument by Stradivari, I would certainly not know to look in Category:Individual musical instruments, but Category:Musical instruments by builder would be immediately recognizable as the right index to look up Stradivari in. I can totally agree that instruments should be (so far as it is known) organized by builder.
Extremely rare instruments that were built in limited numbers: (Forgive me if I did not accurately get the meaning you intended on this one) Kind of by definition, this does not belong in "individual" instruments, but I think there may be value in categorizing something along these lines. The problem is that there are several subjective concepts built on top of each other here ("extremely rare", "notable", "limited/only a few"), none of which are well defined and as a whole which make it impossible to decide what does or does not belong here. Category:Experimental musical instruments and Category:Prototype musical instruments would be a good categories to hold instruments made individually or in limited numbers to develop technology or eventual production/mainstream instruments to come. Since these are often very important in the study of music history, we definitely should have something like this.
Notability in general: The notability standard for Commons categories is essentially, "Do we have a file depicting it?" If yes, then we need appropriate categorization to support the file(s). So in a sense, every category is 'notable' if it has files somewhere under it. There would never be a need for 'Category:Non-notable stuff', so likewise, 'Category:Notable stuff' is not valuable, since essentially categories do not differentiate between the two. Thus I would not advise including 'notability' in a category's definition as it is not really relevant on Commons.
This is an amorphous 'notable stuff' category that is list-making at best (and that is not good). The subs of this cat should be sorted by owner, event, and name as appropriate and this category done away with.
comment - ok, then what is an end-user who is LOOKING FOR a category of 'historically notable weapons (as individual objects)' supposed to do? & ALL categorization is "list-making". feel free to rename it, if you can come up with a better title? Lx 121 (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lx 121: Commons categories do not differentiate notable vs. non-notable content. If a weapon is individualy identifiable, then categorize 'by identifier', then the end user can browse that index. If you want to provide an easy group of particularly prominent individual weapons throughout history for the end user to peruse, a gallery page is the correct form for that. That way you can also provide some context as to why particular weapons are included, further improving the end users' ability to get value from it. Josh (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
not clear what 'identifier' you are suggesting we use (for category-naming)? if we sort by weapons-type (swords, guns, etc.), we still end up needing a meta-category for (at least) ALL those individual weapons that have some historical (&/or mythological) notability, debatably those that (merely) belonged to notable persons, etc. Lx 121 (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lx 121: Why would we need such a category (it would not be a meta-category which would be "category:x by y")? Since there are no categories for non-notable things, Category:Weapons can be presumed to be the same as Category:Notable weapons--we just drop the word notable as redundant. Nearly all files under Category:Weapons depict individual weapons and depict them at some point in history, so the meta-category you say we need could really contain nearly every file depicting a weapon, as that weapon would be all three defining adjectives (historical, notable, individual). Presumably, you would want it more limited than that, so by what criteria do you propose we do so? Josh (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why "in the GDR" ? The GDR does not exist anymore. And there may be one or the other stone among the categorized files, which "made" its way to the west...--Kresspahl (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Estopedist1 (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ich antworte mal auf Deutsch: Die DDR existiert zwar nicht mehr, das trifft aber auch auf andere historische Länder (Preußen) zu, die gegebenfalls auch eigene Kategorien mit Grenzsteinen haben. Grenzsteine, die während der DDR-Zeit gesetzt wurden, findet man vor allem an den Grenzen (Innerdeutsche Grenze, Grenze nach Polen). Davon gibt es auch die meisten Bilder. natürlich gibt es da noch viel mehr Steine im Landesinneren, allerdings hab ich da noch keine Bilder gefunden (wenn ich Zeit hätte, könnte ich ja mal in meiner Gegend nach solchen Steinen suchen). Andererseits sind Bilder in dieser Kategorie enthalten, die auf eine typischen DDR-Geschichte verweisen: z.B. die massenhafte Entfernung von Grenzsteinen im Zusammenhang mit der Bildung von LPGen. Deshalb sollte diese Kategorie erhalten bleiben.--79.214er (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: If the image dates from when the GDR did exist, and it was within the boundaries of that country at the time, then indeed, it belongs in a 'in the GDR' category. This is true of all former countries/entities. Josh (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate there is wiktionary:chiese which seems to list a few (namely churches in Italian) things that could possibly cause miscategorization and we should probably disambiguate the base name. Note that although the river on EN is disambiguated the base name simply redirects there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambtron: It shouldn't be. An 'art work' is an individual discrete item. An 'art collection' is a group of works collectively. An 'art object' in this context is the same as an 'art work' and so hence the proposal to rename from 'art objects' to 'art works'. Josh (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bohème: I don't see the problem. Simply omit performance art works from the collection category -- just as we do with everything else that doesn't belong. @Joshbaumgartner: The distinction between 'art collections' and 'art works by collection' is still not clear to me but, having said that, your proposal makes sense. Lambtron (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambtron: I initially had the same reaction, and for most collections, the only media we have is of the works in the collection. However, there are other aspects to an art collection that may not focus specifically on he works of the collection (facilities, indices, maps, etc.) Furthermore, it is a structural question, and essentially, a category named "Category:XYZ Collection" should be in Category:Art collections, while one named "Category:Art works of the XYZ Collection" should be in Category:Art works by collection. Josh (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Current name gives the initial idea that there is a festival named "Open Festival" of which these are images of. However, this is a project to take pictures of festivals and add them to Commons, so should be renamed to match other categories of images contributed by organizations and such. This will also make it clear that such images are not to removed from their topical categories to be added to the this one, but instead be maintained in their main category page as well as being in this category. This category should also make use of HIDDENCAT, as it is a non-topic category.
@Jwale2: : As the founder of the Open Festival project, do you have any further comment on this? My proposal above is intended to make sure that the photos you contribute are best curated in categories so that they can best be accessed by other users and as a result your project can do the greatest good possible and the cultural activities you are documenting can be most widely viewed by others. Josh (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Replicas of imitations were not meant primarily, but the can be a specific subcategory. The two categories are very similar and close one to other but the names have a bit different connotation and definition. Some very old historic signs can be still valid (theoretically), and some relatively modern signs can be obsolete. We want cover both of them. For practical reason, I would keep the older category (Category:Historic road signs, 13 July 2007, 21 direct subcategories + 44 subcategories "by country" etc.) and redirect the newer almost-duplicate (Category:Obsolete road signs, 11 November 2013, 2 direct subcategories, one of them of a specific country). As regards the name, do you mean, "historical" would be more fitting than "historic"? --ŠJů (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they aren't redundant, because obsolete is clear and historic is ambigous. As usual, I think "very old" is a subjective and unhelpful quality on which to use for categorization. If the design is "very old" but still valid, does a newly made SVG of the sign still qualify for Category:Historic road signs? As you say, a fairly recently made sign can already be obsolete. If we're talking about physically old signs, it'd rather see it at Category:Old road signs, as a subcategory of Category:Old signs, though that is already under discussion for much the same reasons. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of language concepts are relative (you say "subjective"). We have many category trees like "History of..." even though history has no sharp border, or "Views of..." for global views, even though there is no definite distinction between a global view and the detailed view. Simply said, "old" or "rusty" or "historic" or "damaged" or "red" or "German" are such subjects which are perceived as "old", "rusty", "historic", "damaged", "red" or "German". In case of all categories, some boundary and disputable examples can exist, but this fact don't deny sense of the concept itself. We should not restrict all categorization only to "clear" bureaucratic criteria. --ŠJů (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: All language concepts are subjective. Are you saying that because any word or phrase can be argued as to its exact meaning and definition that we should not seek greater clarity in category names? Josh (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: It is too subjective and ambiguous, as there is not widely held consensus as to what qualifies as 'historic'; it is just too dependent on context. Items in this category are better arranged by what it is that actually makes them seem 'historic' to some (by period, condition, etc.). I also have the same question fundamentally about the category: Is it for 'signs of historic roads' or 'road signs which are historic'? Josh (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: No, but some images may need to be recategorized. Sign templates typically contain some placeholder text that can be replaced to create a specific sign, whereas sign blanks contain no placeholder text and are designed to represent the whole class of signs generically. Sign templates normally do not appear as is in articles, but sign blanks may. – Minh Nguyễn💬00:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: In some cases, a sign blank may just be a template with all the placeholder text removed. But in many cases, the template contains text in a font that's unusable as-is in an article, whereas the text has been converted to paths in the sign blank, making it usable in articles. – Minh Nguyễn💬00:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also @99of9: as the bot operator. Background information on this situation would be appreciated - I came across it simply by randomly accessing Commons categories not yet linked to Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose@Mike Peel: Background: Censuses contain a lot of information that is hard to digest in total, and is well represented on maps. Creating maps is hard technical work that most editors cannot chip in to, and if done one-by-one will never reach the scale that a well-tuned semi-automated process can. So I coded a system that could make a chloropleth map of any field that the census reports, in any area of interest (which in Australia tend to be: the entire country, each state, or each of a few major cities). I did not end up doing all of those areas, but did make about 57k maps. Over 100 are in use, which in itself is way more than I could have made one by one. 57k clearly needs a good category system (or structured data support) to sift through. Even such a category system can't be done easily by hand, so I also wrote software to do this, which ended up with this hierarchy Category:Demographic maps of Australia. It is divided by location and 8000 census fields. Since the census fields themselves are often grouped (e.g. by gender or by what kind of question they are asking), I thought through this and added them as intermediate levels to help human navigation to a specific topic. Try it. Pick a topic and place about which you want a map, and navigate down to see if you can find it. I've done this many times and I think it works pretty well. I assume you are not referring to Overcategorization as defined here: "Over-categorization is placing a file, category or other page in several levels of the same branch in the category tree." which I don't think has been done (perhaps apart from meta hidden tracking categories). If you just mean that there are a lot of categories, and the category tree is deep... then yes, but that is needed to an extent to understand a large collection of information about millions of people in thousands of places. A few of those fields are uninteresting, because statisticians make sure to include every possibility, even if the answer to the question was N/A. The one you picked is one such uninteresting set of maps, but if you look one level higher at Category:Demographic maps of females by birthplace in Inner Sydney, then you see it is the only N/A amongst a whole set of useful subcats, which need to be distinct because each have alternate ways to navigate to them. Given that the N/As are rare, I opt to still include them for completeness, but agree they will rarely be useful. All up, I think these are a much more useful structure than your suggested single category of 57k images!!! --99of9 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Now that Wikidata and structured data are available, there may be new ways to arrange and access this content, but that is for a different discussion. --99of9 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike, I've no specific opinion about this case and it might be anyway unnecessary after the detailed reply by 99of9. Just a general comment: when you have such a huge number of files for 1 topic, it's only logical that you subcategorize to finally achieve category-"filling-numbers" that can be handled. This may look as an overcategorisation, however, when it's the only way to avoid overcrowded cats, it's o.k., IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@99of9 and Túrelio: Thanks for the background. By 'overcategorization' in this case I meant that the category titles are far too specific, and there are far too many of them to be useful. Would you consider removing the last layer of categorisation? You seem to have 3 files per category, which seems very low, it would probably be easier to use anyway if you have more files per category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've probably used these categories more than anyone, and I don't find them hard to use. If you mean that more files are unlikely to be placed in such specific categories, I'm not sure you're right on that. The Census is held every 5 years, and I view Wiki Commons as a long term project. Collapsing the final category level would need to go up all category branches, so every file would need about 4 extra categories. IMO it would be a lot of work for no benefit that may need to be undone in a few years if anyone decides to make more. --99of9 (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@99of9: I'm not going to push this too much - if you're convinced that this is the best way to store these files, then I'll leave you to it. I just want to encourage you to reconsider it. As the author of them, I'm not surprised that you don't find them hard to use - but consider that other people might. To browse related files you have to click through many category links, rather than seeing related images together. We may ultimately have many more similar files, but if the census is held every 5 years, then I'd ask why we don't already have quite a few more from past censuses? I'm keen to see Commons' entire category structure synced up with Wikidata, but I can't see how to do it in this case - it's so different from what I normally see elsewhere on Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Once structured data is embedded in the files themselves, it may supersede the need for this structure. But I agree that syncing with WD would be a big job for these categories, and may be somewhat useless. If you do think it's useful, and want me to help do it, I'm open to it at some point. --99of9 (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the information should be stored in the file description, not in the category tree itself. If there is only one file/subcategory in a certain category, it suggests that the category is obsolete. I don't think that this discussion should result in the deletion of all categories, but as Mike Peel suggests, it would be nice to rethink the category tree structure. If 99of9 want to promote the files, they should be easily achieved by their hypothetic users – but in my opinion that is hardly possible now. — Draceanetalkcontrib.22:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in general. There is a lot of content here, so a lot of categorization is warranted. I know the names may seem a bit unwieldy, but this is a large data set of technical information, so it makes sense. Upmerging it into a big bucket just makes the problem worse and makes it much harder to pinpoint the exact data you are looking for. Josh (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a DAB at Category:Tours is most appropriate (which Estopedist1 has now started) since there are different types of tours like concert tours and tourism that aren't conceptual to be in a single category. In addition to that there is also the city in France. On the English WP w:Tour is a DAB and w:Tours is about the city in France, a move request at w:Talk:Tours#Requested move 3 September 2018 failed so it seems quite likely that if the city is primary on ENWP that its likely a strong contender here since we deal with many languages here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale and Estopedist1: The proposal can be implemented as soon as somebody invent some fitting and intuitive new name for the current category "Tours". Maybe something like "Category:Tours (journeys)"? In any case, it is not acceptable to label he category as a redirect until the original general meaning has been moved to any new name.--ŠJů (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: I think, Category:Concert tours are a special case of the same meaning of the word "tour", but doesn't fall under tourism in its commons sense. Category:Tours (travel) seems to be more fitting and appropriate for all cases. A musical group on its tour is travelling, but they are not "tourists". However, all 3 considered variants can be as confusing as the current name: the can evoke that the categories are related to tourism in the city of Tours. However, it is slightly less likely that users will intermittently add content to it without looking at the topic and content of the category. --ŠJů (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the discussion about Category:Men with glasses, and in response to the comment on the talk page, I think this category should not have categories for individual people. If desired, we could have a category called something like "Men who had beards", but many men have had beards without it being notable. Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the discussion about Category:Men with glasses, I think this category should not have categories for individual people. If desired, we could have a category called something like "Medal recipients", if we don't already have something similar. Auntof6 (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Medal recipients" means "people who received medals", while "People with medals" means "Photography of artwork showing a someone with a medal". So this category should only contain files and the subcats by country or by gender. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...16:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a larger issue with Category:Medals and Category:Medallions, which have suffered from poor, overlapping, and conflicting definitions in the past. I'm trying to slowly move these categories and their subcategories into more precisely defined and mutually exclusive bounds, but it is a work in progress.
For example, there is a subcategory of Medals, Category:Medallists, but the word "medallist" can mean a designer or engraver of medals, or a recipient of medals. I was intending to subdivide Medallists into "Designers of medals", "Engravers of medals" and "Recipients of medals".
The "Recipients of medals" category would then be further subdivided into "by recipient" and "by medal" meta categories. These, in turn, could be further broken down by country. I would have to look up the established naming conventions before making a specific proposal, but that's the general idea. At any rate, a "recipient of a medal" in this case would be a person certain with a medal certain, usually at the moment of presentation or during the related celebrations.
"People with medals", to me, means an unidentified or unidentifiable person with an unidentified or unidentifiable medal. "People with medals in country", to me, means unidentified persons and medals, in an identified location. The gender and sports subcategories seem to be more specific categories of the unidentified person / unidentified medal class.
Under this proposal, subcategories of specific persons belongs under "Recipients of medals by recipient", and subcategories of specific medals belongs under "Recipients of medals by medal".
The idea of categories like this is that they should contain subcategories of more specific categories, so that you can "push down" unidentified images into the most specific subcategory applicable. I think the {{Categorize}} banner applies, here. Theoretically, this could be a {{Metacat}}, with a subcategory "Unidentified people with medals" but I suspect that people will land new uploads here anyway, and that the assumption that this category is for unidentified people will remain in actual practice. I believe that "frequent diffusion" will be an ongoing problem here regardless.
One problem with implementing this is that the appropriate cross-referencing of parent categories will need to be done, a time-consuming but necessary task.
Taking a quick look at the unsorted files here right now, currently 573 of them, it seems the majority of them are of identifiable people with unidentified or possibly unidentifiable medals.
I think that TwoWings's definition for this category (Photography of artwork showing a someone with a medal) actually describes Category:People with medals in art, a current subcategory of this category.
Overall, all your comments are spot-on. Further comments and suggestions are welcome. This isn't a top priority for me at this exact moment, but hope to get further into it in perhaps a week or so. PoundTales (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I thought that the difference was that people showcase the people actually wearing the medal while the recipient categories are for listing people that have ever received a certain medal but aren't necessarily photographed wearing it. For example a person without their own category wearing a medal could be "People wearing a Purple Heart" or something as not everyone who received one will have their own category. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It now goes to the general magazine category, unless there unrelated meaning like places or similar with this name a redirect to magazine seems fine. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I agree. I changed it to redirect to Category:Magazines instead. When looking to see if there's any value in making this a dab, it seemed that there isn't, but I noticed that there are many redlinked categories called "Revistas de <foo>", which I will try to address. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as far as I can tell the generally accepted practice for ships with IMO numbers is to have a separate IMO category regardless of how many names they've been known by. Most of the categories in Category:Ships by IMO number only have one subcategory/are only known by one name. Is there something unique about this ship that excludes it from this standard? Godsfriendchuck (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsfriendchuck: Is that documented somewhere? I thought the whole point of using IMO number categories was that they stayed constant while ship names changed: what benefit does having an IMO category have when they ship's only ever had one name? I thought this was a one-off case, hence this individual nomination, but maybe it needs to be brought up more widely somewhere. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any other categories called "Books by authors from <country>", so is this a type of category we want to keep? i think having this kind of category could be a close but not exact duplicate of books from <country> by author, so there might be little value in it. I had redirected this to Category:Books from Romania by author, but User:Luanlou pointed out that that name does not correctly reflect what is here. Auntof6 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose@Joshbaumgartner: Proper names should be not ad hoc translated if the English version is not widely established. Generally, we don't traslate Einstein to Onestone, nor Belarus to White Russia, to make the names "immediately clear to a much larger number of users". On the contrary, such translations make the identity of named subjects more hidden. As you can see in the contained images, the organization was known primarily under this abberviation. If you can see a logo or title "ČSTV" in any photo, you don't need to know Czech to understand that the category ČSTV is the right category for the photo. The relation between "ČSTV" and "Czechoslovak Union of Physical Education" is more hidden and less clear. The full name a bit vary (the words "a sportu" sometimes were used and sometimes not), while the abberviation was widely used, stabilized and very known brand (see here or here). The proposed English translation can help as an additional explanation, but definitely doesn't help to identify the organization. Similarly, the Czechoslovak national bus operator was very known as ČSAD, and this abreviation was very rarely read as full words. Similarly as en:NASA is widely internationally known under this abbreviation, and less under its full name. Some organizations as cs:Čedok or cs:Svazarm were named always as abbreviations, although they have also their explanations (Československá cestovní a dopravní kancelář, Svaz pro spolupráci s armádou). en:LEGO is also never translated to English as "Play Well" to be "immediately clear". Nobody would recognize the brand under such translation. The Danish abbreviation LEGO is more clear for all, although hardly anybody knows origin and original meaning of the name. ČSTV is very similar case. "ČSTV" was on cards and badges and hiking fingerposts, not "CUPE". --ŠJů (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: As explained above, the full name a bit vary (the words "a sportu" sometimes were used and sometimes not), while the abberviation was widely used, stabilized and very known brand (see here or here). Note that even on the membership card, the full name of the organization is not mentioned at all. Similarly, the Czechoslovak national bus and truck operator was widely known as ČSAD, and this abbreviation was very rarely read as full words. Some organizations as cs:Čedok or cs:Svazarm were named always as abbreviations, although they have also their explanations (Československá cestovní a dopravní kancelář, Svaz pro spolupráci s armádou). ČSTV is very similar case. "ČSTV" was on cards and badges and hiking fingerposts (i.e. on most of images which would be categorized here). It's not very practical to force users to first look up the literal meaning of that acronym somewhere if they want to categorize something.
But it is true that for the younger generations who did not experience and remember the communist regime, it may not be so self-evident anymore, and they could confuse this abbreviation with, for example, Czechoslovak Television (ČST). Thus, the category could be moved to Category:Československý svaz tělesné výchovy and a soft redirect from the abberivation should be left. Btw., the logo and the abbreviation was inherited and used also by "Český svaz tělesné výchovy" (1990–2013) but IMHO there is no content to be categorized from this period yet – the category was originally intended to cover both periods of the brand, the Czechoslovak one as well the Czech one, continuously. --ŠJů (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: Well it is true that brands are an acceptable exception to the 'no abbreviations' rule if said brands are better recognized/publicized in their abbreviated form--see Category:NBC. Especially given that in this case the CSTV was carried over for different wordings after the Velvet Revolution, I think there is a good case to be made for this category to remain unchanged. If it is renamed, I would of course want the redirect to remain in place, that makes perfect sense. I will leave the proposal up there, but I'm fine with the category remaining as is if no one else has a strong case to make for a change. Josh (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: this moving to name "Buses built in unidentified year" should be done by an admin, because admins can move categories so that redirects aren't preserved. We don't need redirected categories with unique name "unknown year"--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... that's an old comment of mine that you found lol (from 2009! At Category talk:Arm). That was probably in response to the category move from Arm to Arms. In general, categories on Commons are plural, so Category:Arms (for the body part) is correct and as it is by far the most common use of the term (IMO), I do not think making that into a disambiguation page will be helpful. There is a case to be made for Category:Arm (which is a redirect to Arms) to become a disambiguation page in line with en:Arm_(disambiguation), but the number of matching categories is limited and clearly not called "Arm":
Some things with ARM as an acronym (such as the en:Association of Recovering Motorcyclists. Checking the list on en: it looks as though very few of those pages have related images on Commons.)
I am not sure this particular signpost is needed. Any files that are categorised with "Arm" are now automatically re-categorised to "Arms". I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that if this is made into a disambiguation page, that automatic re-directing will no longer work. Seeing that most files that are categorised at "Arm" need to go to "Arms", the disambiguation page may fill up with incorrectly categorised images. But that is all speculation. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the need to rename. I wonder if something like "Round pizzas cut into <number> slices" would be better. "Round pizzas with 6 slices" could be interpreted as round pizzas that have 6 slices left, which is clearly not the case with this image. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that... I think I am fine with 6 slices meaning 'originally cut into 6 slices', and if really worth it we can have 'with 5 of 6 slices remaining' or some such as a sub, but I also thought about how to word it more precisely. Maybe some form of note should be included on the category to explain? I do not really have much preference one way or the other on that aspect, I just really saw the '(4)', etc. and figured that had to be fixed. Josh (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on this one. Given that en:Thesaban exists on a variety of wikipedias, and one type of Thesaban exists as as a category (en:Category:Tambon) on several wikipedias, I'm not sure that internationalization is the issue. Consistency, maybe, but if Thailand uses "Thesaban" to refer to three different types of government, maybe trying to shoehorn everything into municipality is a bad idea. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this category intended for cats of Makeda's, a cattery in Germany? Does this make sense as a basis for categorization, and if so, is this only for images depicting cats while at the cattery, or the products of the cattery throughout their lives? Alternatively, is this category for a sub-breed of Abyssinian named Makeda's Abyssinian, or perhaps an individual cat named this? Josh (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makeda´s Abyssinian is a sub-breed of Abyssinian. Acccording to a certificate from TICA (The International Cat Association) of 19/14/2013 is Makeda´s a breedline of Abyssian breed. It belongs to the breeder Barthold in Germany. Makeda is named after Ethiopia´s Queen of Sheba. The people of Ethiopia believe that Makeda ruled over a kingdom called Saba, and that was the Biblical Queen of Sheba. Although the famous story of Makeda, Queen of Sheba, and her encounter with king Salomon is likely apocryphal. If it is allowed I would like to place this information in the description of the category Makeda´s Abyssinian. Best greetings --Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 22:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I think this category should be given its previous name before dec. 2018, because its contents correspond not only to the Galician mountain range but to the entire area surrounding the Ancares valley. Serra dos Ancares should be, at most, a subcategory. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. Having said that, I suspect that the name "station wagon series" was intended to refer to the full-size class of station wagons (Del Rio, Ranch Wagon, Country Sedan, Country Squire, etcetera...). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'd be willing to consider splitting the old title off from this category, and applied to those models.----DanTD (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The *entire* city was known as "Constantinople" at the time. While there is indeed the usage of "Istanbul" in current academic literature in Ottoman contexts, it is a historiographical term as the Ottomans themselves didn't call it as such. However the Ngram figures discussed in the talk page are flawed since it's based on one copy of each book, rather than controlling for popularity/frequency of each book. It is better to have historical accuracy in the terms. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move, this is not a place to play historians. Istanbul was always used by the Turks and here we respect names by the source countries. Why do you not object Portuguese names in Commons? Or Category:Chișinău. We all know that it is Kishinev, but we respect the country. BTW Ottoman Istanbul gives three times more results than Ottoman Constantinople in Google searches. --E4024 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Estopedist1: The name of the canal is simply Bergskanalen, and it seems it's the only one we've got pictures for at the moment. It is, however, not the same Bergskanalen as the Wikidata item and long-term Category:Bergskanalen should be a disambiguation page. It's not the only Bergskanalen and there's no reason it should take precedent. /Julle (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand what's wrong with these names of categories. They are special ones for buildings that are cultural heritage monuments in Russia. Meanwhile there are some modern buildings or structures in whole building complexes of these territories or organisations. It seems to be nesessary to have two separate categories for historical buildings (that are culture heritage monuments) and for modern ones. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
И то же самое для коллег-соотечественников: у нас существует множество производственных территорий (заводов, фабрик, трампарков и т.д.), которые, что естественно, поставлены на государственную охрану не целиком - там есть современные постройки, которые не охраняются, а есть исторические, которые являются объектами культурного наследия. Я считаю естественным и логичным создавать для ОКН отдельные субкатегории. Собственно, все вышеприведенные категории созданы мною. Не вижу причин, по которым эти категории не имеют права на существование. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Agreed, but I just wanted to keep the proposal to the point. Do we have enough information on the contents to ensure that they really are all from French-language books? 'Of France' and 'from French-language books' are not automatically equivalent, and I certainly cannot say for sure they are in this case or what importance there is between the language of a book and the watermarks found within. If the watermark itself was in French then I might see a French language category making sense. I could even go for deleting this category I suppose, but even if that is decided in the future, we should do the simple change and make it English as that is a cut-and-dry issue. Josh (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour, en regardant les livres dont sont issu ses filigranes, ils sont majoritairement en langue française et imprimés, conservés en France. Il est malheureusement impossible si le papier a été fabriqué en France. La création de nouvelle catégorie est donc problématique, elle va être dans ce cas un choix, catégorie large contenant toutes ces possibilité ou différentes catégories en fonction de ce que l'on veut faire entrer dans ces catégories. cat made in france, cat in french lagage (ce qui est difficile à déterminer sur un filigrane), cat situated in france... cordialement 194.59.180.2812:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is "High-resolution"? What is the criterium? Please add a definition. Now everybody can claim that his/her photos are hig-resolution. JopkeB (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB and Tukka: "high-resolution" seems to be subjective/relative term. We haven't category:Low-resolution. If this category is useful, then this probably should be automatically done not manually (I presume bots can classify files "by pixels per inch" or something like this) Estopedist1 (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Thanks for your contribution. Yes, this may be a solution. But I don't know enough about pixels to propose a concrete number. By the way, for your information: there is a Category:Images of low quality. I use it incidently for really bad images (mostly also with low resolution) which may not be deleted. So this category could function as the opposite of high resolution. JopkeB (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of what standard we set for what counts as 'high', it should be renamed to make it clear this category is for capturing images that meet the standard.
Question@IvanaMadzarevic: Are the files in this category actually contributed by Sacred Trees Serbia, or are they already existing Commons files which are gathered/identified/sorted/curated by Sacred Trees Serbia? Josh (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Box is British English. Booth is american. Kiosk is I think the technical term at least for some early models (certainly what we are calling K1 telephone boxes were officially called Kiosk No 1 Mk 236).Geni (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As to booth / box / kiosk, then box is correct. I don't care otherwise what it's called, but this should be for the specifically British GPO designs and their derivatives. Note that they weren't all Gilbert Scott designs, weren't all red, and were also used outside the UK (and some are tourist tchotchkes elsewhere anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the category I did indeed intend it to accompany the wiki article about the British designs, That article could probably use more precise language in it's title. I have no problem with the suggestion by Themightyquill to make it a subcategory of Category:Red telephone booths. As for which suffix should be used, kiosk, box and booth. This has been a mildly annoying factor for some time with particular users insisting their word is the right one and resisting or reverting attempts to standardise. Here is the last discussion on the subject https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2019/07/Category:BT_Group_telephone_boxes predictably reaching no consensus. Personally I have a desire for standardisation of the category structure and am flexible on which is the best word to use. Oxyman (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official name is kiosk (hence the K, right to the K8s) but COMMONNAME is box for the UK. We work by COMMONNAME. US ones can be booth if they wish, because MediaWiki categorization just doesn't care about standardisation. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Booth" would be yet another wiki-neologism. "Booth" isn't UK terminology, "red booth" is a meaningless combination. There is no MediaWiki reason why we would have to use "red booth" from some false consistency with "purple booths". Nor are "purple booths" even (AFAIK) a notable grouping, in the way that "red phone boxes" and "red buses" are. "British" is wrong. If you're not familiar with the difference between UK and GB, then there's a well-known encyclopedia site which ought to explain it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1: you yourself said "specifically British GPO designs" in the above conversation, so if ""British" is wrong." then you yourself are as guilty as anyone you seek to appear superior to.
As for the rest of your post, not sure what you are trying to say, you realise Commons is not a UK only project do you not? Do you have a suggestion to clear up the confusion being discussed or just an incoherent rant? Oxyman (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the GPO in the early years of the Irish Republic is a complicated one. The British and Irish systems were never fully amalgamated, even after 1831, and some services remained under Dublin control. This particularly affected telegraphs and telephones. This wasn't fully resolved after Irish independence until 1922, even 1924 for some aspects. Technically this led to amount of Ericsson equipment installed in Ireland (including the eventual North) and some technical standards that didn't quite match the British standards. So in the early years, when the term 'kiosk' was being adopted, there was nominally a UK GPO for postal services, but their remit for telecoms didn't yet extend to Northern Ireland. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So "British" is or is not wrong, well that clears that one up, also you talk of "notable grouping". This is Commons where there is no notability criteria. Your posts do not seem to relate to Commons or the confusion being discussed. Not sure what your point is but I do notice you didn't even read your own post in the above conversation before contradicting yourself, so I have to assume that you're not familiar with the categories being discussed and you are just a person with an opinion but no experience of how that is related to practice at Commons, something that's actually quite common with people that come here from Wikipedia. Oxyman (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How they want to name the cat for all the specific british version is up to those interested. Please come up with a category title for the specific type of red telephone booth designed by Gilbert Scott. In any event by the end of this year I will create "red telephone booths". Roy17 (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised the issue we were discussing had been caused by just one user: special:diff/161707025. There's actually nothing wrong with the original cat structure. What a waste of time because of some buffoon. Roy17 (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the "red booths" cat has now been recreated I went ahead and made this cat a subcat of the former as first proposed by user Themightyquill, also I recated some of the err... non Sir Giles Gilbert Scott related structures that contain telecommunications equipment. The En:wiki cat name isn't great but probably not fruitful to argue about. Oxyman (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just reverted this edit by an "ip user" which attempted to merge the categories, I think the results of this discussion are that the Sir Giles Gilbert Scott structures should have their own cat Oxyman (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should be resolved on a higher category level than just Norway. There is a general problem with these two top categories, namely that we don't seem to have a rule when a boat is large enough to become a ship. The English WP defines a boat as "generally smaller than a ship, which is distinguished by its larger size, shape, cargo or passenger capacity, or its ability to carry boats.", whereas a fishing vessel can be a boat or a ship. De728631 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is also my understanding. If the vessel is large enough it becomes a ship, although the size limit may need further discussion. 10 metres seems a bit short to me, and there are pleasure craft of this length and above that are still referred to as boats. The FAO has several classes for "length over all" (LOA) with the majority being small coastal vessels under 18 m. For our purposes I suggest defining these as boats whereas LOA ≥ 18 m is a fishing ship. De728631 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second distinguising between boats in ships - although there are obviously many border examples, which could be classified one way or another... It will never be perfect. Maybe in case of doubts, the photos could have two categories. Then, categories regarding bigger vessels should be moved from "fishing boats" to "fishing ships". I've already moved Category:Fishing trawlers from fishing boats to fishing ships, through intermediate Category:Trawlers (strangely, Trawlers was a sub-category of Fishing trawlers, which was a sub-category of Fishing boats, while it should be the opposite).
BTW, I'm not sure if we need a category Fishing Trawlers - apart from trawlers modfied for military tasks, all trawlers are fishing trawlers (and even military ones were in most cases converted from fishing trawlers). And I'm afraid, that many photos described as "trawlers" are just boats, without trawling gear, popularly called so... Pibwl (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been moribund for a while but:
"Fishing vessels" is the more general term, and perhaps should have a place in each hierarchy, with the ships/boats distinction under that.
We definitely shouldn't conflate "fishing ships" and "fishing boats". I'm thinking, for example, of our local fishing fleet out of Seattle. The distinction is pretty sharp, even if there might be a few vessels that are close to the border between the categories.
A reasonably large fishing boat.
Prowler here might be near the border.
I think there is no question that these are "fishing ships," and they aren't even nearly the biggest.
And then there are things like the trawler Nothern Hawk, where it would be absurd to say "boat" rather than "ship".
See also: Category talk:Open Festival.
Support Merge. Without clear differences let there be one main category for all covered walkways within or between buildings. I indeed prefer Category:Passages (architecture). --JopkeB (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree, and after that Category:Athletics equipment and clothing to be deleted as not needed container category--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
See also: Category talk:Open Festival. Oppose @Mike Peel: Background: Censuses contain a lot of information that is hard to digest in total, and is well represented on maps. Creating maps is hard technical work that most editors cannot chip in to, and if done one-by-one will never reach the scale that a well-tuned semi-automated process can. So I coded a system that could make a chloropleth map of any field that the census reports, in any area of interest (which in Australia tend to be: the entire country, each state, or each of a few major cities). I did not end up doing all of those areas, but did make about 57k maps. Over 100 are in use, which in itself is way more than I could have made one by one. 57k clearly needs a good category system (or structured data support) to sift through. Even such a category system can't be done easily by hand, so I also wrote software to do this, which ended up with this hierarchy Category:Demographic maps of Australia. It is divided by location and 8000 census fields. Since the census fields themselves are often grouped (e.g. by gender or by what kind of question they are asking), I thought through this and added them as intermediate levels to help human navigation to a specific topic. Try it. Pick a topic and place about which you want a map, and navigate down to see if you can find it. I've done this many times and I think it works pretty well. I assume you are not referring to Overcategorization as defined here: "Over-categorization is placing a file, category or other page in several levels of the same branch in the category tree." which I don't think has been done (perhaps apart from meta hidden tracking categories). If you just mean that there are a lot of categories, and the category tree is deep... then yes, but that is needed to an extent to understand a large collection of information about millions of people in thousands of places. A few of those fields are uninteresting, because statisticians make sure to include every possibility, even if the answer to the question was N/A. The one you picked is one such uninteresting set of maps, but if you look one level higher at Category:Demographic maps of females by birthplace in Inner Sydney, then you see it is the only N/A amongst a whole set of useful subcats, which need to be distinct because each have alternate ways to navigate to them. Given that the N/As are rare, I opt to still include them for completeness, but agree they will rarely be useful. All up, I think these are a much more useful structure than your suggested single category of 57k images!!! --99of9 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment, I thought that the difference was that people showcase the people actually wearing the medal while the recipient categories are for listing people that have ever received a certain medal but aren't necessarily photographed wearing it. For example a person without their own category wearing a medal could be "People wearing a Purple Heart" or something as not everyone who received one will have their own category. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete unclear purpose--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Question @Themightyquill: It seems the nominated category is of the Italian language, but Category:Book illustrations of Italy is of the country of Italy. Are all of the illustrations in the nominated category actually from the country of Italy? Josh (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
