Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in November 2019.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/11.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2019-11.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Results of animations of geometry

[edit]

unique category: Why not only category:animations of geometry? Estopedist1 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't allow redundant categories and we don't allow unique categories that doesn't leave any allowable categories. Hyacinth (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyacinth: What is the difference between this content and Category:animations of geometry? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: None of the files at Category:Results of animations of geometry appear to be animations. Presumably they are film frames taken from animations, possibly the final frame. Hyacinth (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward Haas: Can you offer any input here? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Estopedist1, Hyacinth, Themightyquill, and Edward Haas: Is this similar to Category:Animated film screenshots then, just that these seem to depict geometric patterns? Is there value to differentiating them from Category:Geometric patterns just because there may be an associated animation that preceded/included them? Josh (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:溴

[edit]

Empty translated-name of existing cat (Category:Bromine). DMacks (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can't it just be redirected then? since it doesn't appear ambiguous (if it is it should become a DAB). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at Category:Chinese radicals and other grandparent cats of this one, they all seem to be for the characters themselves and not for files on the topic of the meaning of the character. And nor are they categorized according to those meanings. That is, they are strictly a typography portion of the commons category tree. DMacks (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The real question is, why should we keep it if it is empty? I agree that we can distinguish between the category for a character and the category for the concept that character represents. However, so long as there is no media in this category, it should be deleted until such media is added to Commons. @DMacks and Crouch, Swale: Josh (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metal bridges

[edit]

Unclear purpose, scope, definition and contents.

See Category talk:Iron_bridges. We have a long-term issue where naming and meaning are confused for bridges, particularly iron vs steel. This category is part of that, although also the least useful.

We have Category:Bridges by material, which is clearly an important high-level category for the description of bridges. It should include, as direct children, all of the major material-based types. Even where that is contradicted by COM:OVERCAT (hiding major groups beneath arbitrary sub-categories is unhelpful). This category is a worst-case example of that.

"Metal" bridges mean either iron or steel. There are a vanishingly small group of bridges in aluminium, maybe even something obscure in another metal (but examples escape me at present). "Iron" is also sub-divided importantly into wrought iron and cast iron. This is such an important distinction (they have contradictory properties, thus are used in quite different structural types) that we should treat those two materials as distinct and place them directly under "by materials", i.e. a three way split between cast iron, wrought iron and steel.

The content of this category does not represent any rational grouping:

"Footbridges" would seem to be inevitable here as a valid and defining group, but it tells us little otherwise. Like this category, "metal" just doesn't work as a grouping.

"Riveted" bridges is again, a valid and defining group in itself (both iron and steel were frequently riveted, concrete is not). But again, it plays no useful part in any navigational pattern. "Riveted steel" bridges would be firstly bridges by structural type (arch, girder, truss etc.), secondly by steel as a material and in a far third place, by riveting. "Riveting" alone as a supercategory, encompassing the three materials in all their forms, is of very little use.

"Iron" and "steel", as such broad terms, have all the problems already described.

The files included here are such a random collection as to be meaningless.

A more rational structure here would include deleting this category. Probably iron bridges and metal footbridges too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the problem. I accept that all bridges should eventually be placed in the correct iron or steel bridges category - ultimately, it should have no images - but if someone doesn't know whether a bridge is made of iron or steel, it's better to have it in Category:Metal bridges, no? And if we're going to have Category:Metal structures, it doesn't seem outlandish that we might have Category:Metal bridges as a subcategory. Sorry if I've failed to grasp something important from your comments above. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this category permanent or temporary? If it's temporary, is that really temporary (i.e. files are expected to be moved out of it), or is it actually permanent, as a group for "We can't identify this and have given up trying"?
It's named here, and populated, as if it's permanent i.e. a useful sub-layer of grouping between "materials" and either "iron" or "steel". But it doesn't work for that, as discussed. It's just not a useful grouping to identify bridges as "metal", but no more than that. We need to either go deeper, or we might as well not bother to identify their material.
If really temporary, it should be named as "Unidentified bridges of either wrought iron or steel", and cast-iron should be excluded (as they're identifiable from their shape).
We can place both "steel bridges", "iron bridges" et al. directly into "metal structures" just as well, without a superfluous extra layer. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Holger1959, who created the cat is no longer active on Wikipedia and Commons (though his work lives on since many german wikipedians still work heavily with his lists and scripts). I am ambivalent about the cat in questions - decide on best judgement. --Ordercrazy (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley and Themightyquill: This appears to be a valid category. We have an established tree of Category:Metal objects as a parent to objects made of metal, so it makes sense to have Category:Metal bridges for all bridges made of metal regardless of type, with subcategories for specific metals as appropriate. This is not a 'temporary' category, though it would be good for as many contents as possible to be sorted by specific metal as research permits, but both new and old content which has yet to be identified need a home and so I suggest we keep this category as is. Josh (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep useful and valid category. I agree with Josh. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It's useful to have the general category, such as to fit under other metal-related categories that might not be limited to iron or steel. I do think that the various "iron or steel" categories could be replaced with general "metal" categories because combining different things, even if similar, is not a good practice.
If people are concerned about specifying which metal is involved, we can add a {{Categorise}} template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes

[edit]

La région Rhône-Alpes n'existe plus. Le contenu de cette catégorie devrait être transféré dans category:Railway lines in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, et la catégorie supprimée. Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this discussion to several other related categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr.Latreille and Themightyquill: Rhône-Alpes is a former region, but we should not just delete it and its sub-topics and move the content to Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Instead, Category:Rhône-Alpes should remain as a category under Category:Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes and likewise Category:Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes should remain as a category under Category:Railway lines in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (I have added it to this category). Josh (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point in categorizing by non-existent administrative divisions, unless they are of longstanding cultural-historical significance. en:Rhône-Alpes was created in 1982. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I am not sure how we can successfully come up with an arbitrary basis for determining which historical entities should be categorized and which not based on how long-standing or culturally significant they are. I would venture the only standard should be whether or not we have media relevant to the entity in question. If we have media depicting rail lines during 1982-2015 when Rhone-Alpes existed, then this category should be retained. Merging that media into a category for an entity that did not even exist at the time the media depicts makes no sense at all. Rhone-Alpes categories should probably be linked to Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes categories, but not merged into them.
Additionally, even we were to have some kind of importance threshold, if a first-level country subdivision that was home to more than 5 million people for 33 years doesn't pass muster, that threshold is way too high, in my opinion. The point it though, it shouldn't be my opinion or yours on which arbitrary line is okay. It should be simple question of do we have media on this topic from this place and time. If yes, the category is correct and should be retained. If no, then it serves no purpose and should be deleted. Josh (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: While I see your point, all of the content in Category:Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes is already sub-categorized by narrower location, so there's no reason to keep this category. I think that's the same for many categories in Category:Rhône-Alpes. Obvious exceptions would be things like Category:Buses of TER Rhône-Alpes. For instance the flags of Rhône-Alpes in could stay, but the subcategories like Category:Flags of Loire could be removed. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, I definitely see what you are saying, and it certainly presents as a bit of a conundrum. If all of Rhone-Alpes railways are diffused by department (which makes some sense), but since those same departments are now part of Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes instead, a lot of the content in those categories will not be really of Rhone-Alpes (everything since 2015). So then there is the question where should a sub-division be sorted if the sub-division has been part of multiple parent divisions over time? Should it only be under its current or most recent parent, or under all of its parents? That question is a lot bigger than this particular category though.
But let's presume we go forward with removing Railway lines in Ain (and the rest) from Rhone-Alpes, and only list them under their current parent, Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes. The first file I found in Railway lines in Ain is File:Vélorail - Pugieu (Ain).JPG, a picture from 2010 (in Rhone-Alpes). Currently, it lives fine where it is, in the Rhone-Alpes tree, but if Railway lines in Ain is moved out of that tree, this file is then no longer correctly in it, and so would then need to be added separately back to Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes. This would of course apply to a lot of images. This is not a problem and maybe it is the way to go if we decide sub-territories only belong under their current parent, but it wouldn't obviate the need to keep this category for those images that really are from that region, not the current one.
Alternatively, one could create a sub such as Ain, Rhône-Alpes under Ain for images specific to its time under that parent, with Ain itself living only under Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Then the Rhone-Alpes-specific cat could live as a geographic sub of this category. But again, that would mean keeping this category.
Either way, the fact is that we have images of railways of Rhône-Alpes that are not images of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Thus this category should be kept to retain that connection for those images. If we want to re-work how the sub-categories are arranged, that is fine, but the files of railways Rhône-Alpes should remain somewhere within this category under whatever new structure is adopted. This category therefore should be kept. 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Josh (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries have had regional sudivisions like this change many many times. I don't think it's reasonable to keep them all for all content. Keep general content in the most current geographic categories, and keep only content specifically related to former geographic categories (maps, flags, etc) in those ones. ---- Themightyquill (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water cannon salutes at sea

[edit]

I have two suggestions. First, why should this category specify "at sea"?

Currently almost all of these images are of fireboats in fresh water, or in brackish estuary water - ie, not "at sea".

Second, Wouldn't something like Category:Fireboat salutes or Category:Saluting fireboats be a better choice? While fireboats use water cannons for fighting maritime fires, and for ceremonial salutes, water cannon are also mounted on big trucks, for fighting rioters.

If someone were to organize a salute from the water cannons on a vehicle normally used for fighting rioters, I think it would be best if those images were in a completely different category. Geo Swan (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, how do we distinguish from Category:Ships demonstrating water cannons ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Water cannon salutes at sea
Category:Ships demonstrating water cannons		Merge intoCategory:Watercraft using water cannons
@Geo Swan and Themightyquill: Not sure all of these are actually fireboats, so watercraft is more inclusive. Also not sure that we can always know the purpose of cannon use in an image, so this is again inclusive and if specific uses warrant categories they can be subs of this.
Josh (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Craters

[edit]
See also: en:User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization of craters.

IMO it is nonsense to disambiguate this because of a) subcats that have to dab'd too and b) of many interwiki links pointing here. Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters can be subcats of this one and everything is fine. Achim (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies for Category:Crater lakes. --Achim (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You posted a little bit ahead of me, but not the same list as I was going to suggest. I suggest keeping Category:Craters and Category:Crater lakes as disambiguations because, as happened on English Wikipedia, some well-meaning editor will probably just re-create them again anyway. But we should remove the array of Craters by continent, Craters by country, Craters in (country name), Crater lakes by continent, Crater lakes by country, Crater lakes in (country name), etc. I hadn't assembled that whole list yet. For background on the related cleanup on English Wikipedia, see w:User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization_of_craters. Ikluft (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I agree that it is helpful to distinguish. We should have and use the three cats Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters. The question is: Does a disambig suit our needs better that keeping these 3 cats as subcat members of Category:Craters in a regular manner, same way like d:Q109391 and d:Q55818 are subclasses of d:Q3240715. Regards, --Achim (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do what you want (the category system in general isn't worth much anyway...), I will generate a list of pages pointing to these disambigs that have to be fixed then. --Achim (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the definition of a disambiguation category prohibits any contents including subcategories. Ideally we'd want to limit the subcategories to Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters, and then force subcategorization into those. Unfortunately, experience has shown that if Category:Craters isn't a disambiguation then people will drop stuff in it, partly because tools like HotCat show the name without a definition. (HotCat re-prompts for the suggested alternatives if a disambiguation is selected.) Given those constraints, the suggestion for reorganizing the categories that I was working on would look like this... (total: keep 2 as disambiguation, delete 101)
So now you can see why that list was taking a little while to assemble... Ikluft (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. So we will have an assignment problem if the cats of 49 wikis + 42 wikis are regular ones linked with 2 disambiguating cats on commons. Do you intend disambiguating these 91 cats as well? Btw, on a wiki I saw a disambig page distinguishing between -Greek vessels and -landforms, then keeping the landforms as regular cats. But I think we will have to live with many wikis not disambiguating "Craters" and "Crater lakes" except just Commons. Good luck! --Achim (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This cleanup was already done on the English Wikipedia in 2009 and is getting maintenance cleanup right now. On Wikidata, the craters category is a disambiguation matching English Wikipedia. Most other wikis tend to follow the big ones. We can proceed one step at a time, and the next step is to clean up the crater ambiguity on Commons. Ikluft (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the first one who tries to transfer en:wp naming or structures to Commons. I'm tired, for the record I strongly  Oppose your suggestions and am off now. --Achim (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's about reducing ambiguity. Nevermind that the same problem exists on multiple wikis - we're dealing with Human nature. If you're giving up, please withdraw your CfD. Ikluft (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will post a CfD as listed above for removal of ambiguous unqualified crater-related categories after this one is closed. It currently blocks my proposal by holding the head of the category tree under process discussion. Ikluft (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no logical reason for Category:Craters to be a disambiguation page. There are different variety of craters, but they are all craters by the same definition. Disambiguation are for wholly unrelated things by the same name. Yes, people might put content into Category:Craters instead of the appropriate subcategories, just as they put content into Category:Vehicles instead of the appropriate subcategories. But we don't turn every category with sub-categories into a disambiguation page. If people put it there, it has a greater chance of being sorted appropriately by someone who can properly identify what time of crater it is. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is logic to it. See the "Categorization_of_craters" essay for background if you haven't already. The Category:Vehicles is a false analogy - vehicles are made of wheels, frames and (usually) motors and have much in common. Craters have a long history across the wikis of causing confusion among well-meaning editors over the apparent similarity in being forms of depressions, but being otherwise unrelated except by a broad definition in the English dictionary which separately lists impact, volcanic and explosion craters in order to fit them in because they're so different. The confusion goes further as people unfamiliar with craters mistake them for other kinds of depressions, such as sinkholes, and vice versa. It is worthwhile to provide some additional help to well-meaning editors. We also have the problem that tools like HotCat don't provide definition info, but will re-prompt for alternatives for a disambiguation category. Disambiguation categories are required to be empty. It would have been ideal if there had been a way for a disambiguation category to contain only their listed alternatives. But that option is not available - since the 3 kinds of craters actually have Category:depression (geology) as their common factor, this isn't a bad choice. Of the imperfect choices available, it's a good compromise which provides assistance for well-meaning editors to avoid a recurring trap of confusion. Ikluft (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the different types of craters are conceptual enough to have a container category so there should probably be a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a new update on my estimate of what a CfD reorg would take to implement this, after looking at how the categories are used. (total 128 categories = 3 disambiguation + 44 rename + 34 merge + 12 delete redirects + 35 delete ambiguous)
  • Keep as disambiguation categories
  • Rename categories (change "in" to "of" for consistency)
  • Merge categories
  • Remove redirect categories with ambiguous unqualified uses of crater
  • Remove categories with ambiguous unqualified uses of crater
If I understand correctly, since all those categories will need notices posted in them, it has to be a separate CfD/CfR/CfM reorg after this CfD closes. I don't think there's a way for this CfD to turn around and redefine itself to such a wider scope. Ikluft (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2019/11&oldid=720310006"