I retroactively oppose the recent renaming of this category from Category:Sleeping cars (rail transport); "sleeping car" is a well-established term all over the world while "sleeping train" just sounds strange. Also a sleeping car on its own isn't a "train", "sleeping trains" sounds like it refers to an entire night train, making the category redundant. ACo2c (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) it doesn't sound strange at all, sleeping car sounds strange 2) sleeping cars is false and we should use the accurate term, those are not cars 3) good point to raise the night train category, it should probably set on this category – however that cat is only for passenger train in service during night while the cat here is about rail transport with dedicated support for sleep (i.e. having beds). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amtrack uses "sleeping car" (and confusingly also "sleeper car", on the same page!). ÖBB uses "sleeping car". CIWL used to call itself "the International Sleeping-Car Company" in English. The European Rail Timetable (a British publication) uses "sleeping car". I do not know why you consider their usage of the term to be "false". The English Wikipedia article is at en:w:Sleeping car. English Wikipedia also has en:w:Passenger railroad car, en:w:Dining car and en:w:Couchette car, all referring to various kinds of rail vehicles. I see no proof that the word "car" can only refer to road vehicles.
And even if there would be consensus that "car" is absolutely, truly unacceptable to use in a railway context I still don't think the current name is optimal. Category:Night trains and most other "train" categories are about types of train services, while this category is (or at least used to be) about a type of rail vehicle. A picture of a single sleeping car – or whatever you like to call it – standing by itself in a rail yard could be categorised into Category:Sleeping cars (rail transport), but it can't reasonably be categorised in Category:Sleeping trains, because a single unpowered rail vehicle on its own can't really be described as a train. Can the category at least have a name that makes it clear if it is about a train service category or a type of vehicle? ACo2c (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per CarA car, or an automobile, is a motor vehicle with wheels. so it is wrong or at least misleading and suboptimal. I know that some use that term but many also use the term sleeping trains so that's not a good argument for using the false term. The Wikipedia article should also be moved but that needs to be discussed there. Because the night trains cat is about something different, this separate cat is due. It can't reasonably be categorised in Category:Sleeping trains because a train that includes one cabin with beds is a sleeping train. You think all pictures in trains categories show full trains? This category is about the type of vehicle and by extension related activities, services, impacts, issues, and so on just like it is the case for Cat categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the English Wikipedia says that "car" can refer to "a motor vehicle with wheels". It also says that it can refer to quite a number of other things. In natural languages the same word can be used to mean several different things; there is no helping that. The House of Commons is not a "single-unit residential building", but that does not make its name "fake". And why do you trust the English Wikipedia article Car so much when you dismiss the same project's article Sleeping car as "false", "wrong" and "misleading"? ACo2c (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per Train, [a] train is a series of connected vehicles that run along a railway track. This image is in Category:Sleeping trains, but clearly does not show "a series of connected vehicles". Therefore, by your own logic, the term "Sleeping train" must be "fake", "false", "wrong", "misleading" and so on, right? ACo2c (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the ENWP page of house is slightly flawed since house refers not just to residential buildings and I think because the term House there is meant metaphorically as to 'house' the members of parliament similar to how Hogwarts Houses (also UK origin) does not refer to actual houses.
Because sleeping car is a common name that is false and used next to other common terms that are accurate while Car is used accurately and is defined there in several sentences and using many refs rather than just being the article title.
I don't trust it though, I cited it for clarification and other sources can be added if useful. In general it would be good if Wikimedia projects are more or less consistent so if there was actually a flaw with ENWP's definition of Car it would first need to be corrected there rather than ignored on other pages.
Train components are within the scope of a category about trains. The same thing can be observed for many other categories like the one for cars...if useful or deemed necessary one could create a subcategory for components and/or individual coaches.
Revert the recent unilateral renaming per ACo2C. "Sleeper cars" is a very common term for railway coaches with sleeping provisions in India, although "sleeper coaches", "sleeper compartments" and "sleepers" are also used here. I had previously tabled a CFD to rename Category:Automobiles to Category:Cars, but it was unanimously opposed before I withdrew the proposal. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That it is a common term doesn't mean we need to use the inaccurate/false term rather than another very common term. See my further points in the reply to ACo2c. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "car" doesn't always mean a motorized road vehicle, for which we use "automobile". As I have said before, I had once proposed to rename the Commons category for consistency with the Wikipedia usage. However, most prominent users (notably JopkeB and Joshbaumgartner) had opposed it before my withdrawal of the proposal. The terms "sleeping cars" and "sleeper cars" are not inaccurate or false, as long as the term "car" refers to a covered land vehicle. However, since we try to avoid using the term "cars" extensively, we can call the sleeping cars as "sleeping rail vehicles" but not "sleeping trains". As pointed out by ACo2c, a train is a series of rail vehicles. In India, we have express trains with a mix of sleeping (reserved) and sitting (unreserved) rail coaches. So calling them "sleeping trains" is rather problematic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, the Hindi word "gāṛī" (गाड़ी) is equivalent to the word "car", which also exists in many other Indian languages. However, we often say "railcars" (रेलगाड़ी) while talking about trains, and countrymen say "bullcars" (बैलगाड़ी) while riding on bullock-carts. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with "sleeping rail vehicles" even though I'd prefer the current one since I think it's more common (e.g. more widely understood). As noted earlier, "express trains with a mix of sleeping (reserved) and sitting (unreserved) rail coaches" is a sleeping train. If there is one rail coach with beds, then it would be within the scope of this category as are characteristic components of sleeping trains such as one sleeping coach as well as related subjects such as the economics of them.
In Europe, most trains operating at night are not sleeping trains, that means you have to sleep very uncomfortably while sitting if you do so. Even if car doesn't always mean that, it's generally understood this way and even ENWP defines it this way. I should have included this in the quote Most definitions of cars state that they run primarily on roads, seat one to eight people, have four wheels. A main point of it is that it's a different category of transport vehicles than rail transport vehicles. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Commons has a number of other categories for rail vehicles that are named something with "car" or "cars". Hundreds and hundreds of them, in fact – I just gave up an attempt to estimate their number more precisely. If it is decided here that we can't use the word "car" for rail vehicles, all of these presumably have to be renamed. Is there some easy way to identify them all and tag them with the "This category is being discussed..." template? ACo2c (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Commons:AutoWikiBrowser. However, they don't have to be renamed, I think they should though. Maybe one can use petscan to find all categories within the Rail transport category branch containing car in the title. It would be great if that was done but it could also be done separately at a much later point for example. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the English dialects I'm familiar with, "sleeping cars", "sleeper cars" or just "sleepers" (in context) are common; I don't recall ever before hearing the phrase "sleeping trains" (which to me conjures up an image of a children's cartoon of an anthropomorphic locomotive taking a nap). Google verbatim search shows "About 1,670,000 results" for "sleeping cars"; "About 37,400 results" for "sleeping trains". "Sleeping trains" does not seem to be the common construction, and agree it should not be what we call them on Commons. Agree that what seems an undiscussed unilateral move should be reverted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more about which concept is more appropriate as the subject of the category than about the usage. It's a fair point and I don't know why term is more common.
Nevertheless the term car seems misleading to false even if it is common.
Alternative terms also are "Sleeper trains", "Overnight trains" and "Night trains" but the latter is also inappropriate since conventional trains without beds can also operate at night. The term is widely used and the number of google results is not a good indicator or rationale, this would be better but also isn't good and I can't access the data there (maybe somebody could take a screenshot and put it somewhere).
Agree that a search such as done above is not by it self a rationale, it is simply an observation of common usage in English. If there is already a common phrase naming something, I see no need to try to coin some Wikimedia specific neologism for it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted a category with both a different name and a different scope, you could have created a new category instead of hijacking an existing, well-established one without discussion. ACo2c (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but the issue still is that the term is essentially false – another approach would be to move it to "Sleeping wagons" and create another cat above it which can easily still be done. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero "false" "wrong" or "misleading" in the term "en:w:Sleeping car". I've been trying to resist speculating thus far, but given continued arguments I'll ask: @Prototyperspective: do you have some objection to all uses of the term "car" to refer to anything other than an automobile? When did you first learn that the term continues to be common in English to refer to other things (and indeed has been since decades before automobiles became common)? Do you think such terms must be stamped out? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's 1) because the term is usually contrasted to rail transport and various sources define it in ways that are incompatible with it referring to rail transport wagons. I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source but I'll cite it anyway because you can use it to find other sources, it's not that unreliable if it's a large article, other sources state the same, and things should be consistent
A car, or an automobile, is a motor vehicle with wheels. Most definitions of cars state that they run primarily on roads, seat one to eight people, have four wheels, and mainly transport people over cargo.
2) Rail transport wagons do no have a motor
3) They do not run primarily run on roads but on rails
As far as I can tell, no one is denying that the most common usage of the word "car" in English is for automobiles. As far as I can tell, no one but *you* @Prototyperspective: is trying to argue that the word can't ever mean anything else, and other uses of the word "car" are somehow "false" "wrong" or "misleading". Thank you for clarifying the situation that fighting against any other usage of the word is exactly what you are doing here. Your requested "refutation": 1) The very article you quote, en:w:Car links at the very top to en:w:Car (disambiguation), thus at the very start acknowledging that other meanings exist. 2,3,4 are either usually or completely true, but are irrelevant to the discussion, since none of those facts make them somehow not cars. Again I point out en:w:Sleeping car; there is also en:w:Tank car, en:w:Boxcar, en:w:Passenger railroad car, etc. Such usages can be found in dictionaries, literature, and common vernacular. For some reason you apparently don't like that. You are certainly entitled to your personal preferences, however it is not the job of Wikimedia Commons to be an arbitrator of usage of the English language, much less do you have personal authority to declare common English language words null and void. Pardon if I seem blunt; I'm aware of good work you've done here. However it seems to me that you are making a personal mission to fight against one particular example of common and long established word usage, to the detriment of useful discussion of category names. Thanks for your attention. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making a personal mission, I just moved it, which may have been the wrong discussion since I should rather nominated the category for discussion, and calmly argued against points made here.
I maintain that the term is inappropriate (whether or not it's false is somewhat irrelevant), I wasn't saying it can't mean anything else since people obviously this word also to refer to wagons and I'd suggest that the term with car is redirecting to the wagons or trains category (as currently the case) and that all notable synonyms, especially "sleeping car" (self-driving cars in which you can sleep or who have a driver?) are listed in the category description so the page is well findable and well understood. Also I'd be fine with somebody moving the category title back as it was until this discussion is closed. Then if the scope is to be the wagon, not the train I'd support "sleeper wagon" (alternatively sleeper coach). Apparently the international build term for it is "wagon-lit". Prototyperspective (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Rename to "Arms and armour". It should use British English, not American English. Americans bypassed the age of armour. O think it is an exception. See the Wiki category of "Category:Individual arms and armour". Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support keep and rename to UK spelling per User: Laurel Lodged. The terms "arms" and "armor" refer to various different things depending on context. The phrase "arms and armour" refers to a specific set of things. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that all categories are named in the format "Former XXX members"; but as time goes by, all groups will eventually come to an end. That is to say, we created a category for former members is not necessary, unless there is proof that they never come to an end.
@ウィ貴公子 Even if there is precedent, that doesn't put something in stone, and certainly doesn't automatically apply it to the case at hand. The fact that a practice is being done in more than one case, even if it is widespread, is not a reason to keep doing a bad practice. Josh (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Categorization based on the current status of something is always problematic as things can always change, so these have to be well-maintained. While this can be done by a dedicated user or group, it is reliant on that user or group remaining committed to that maintenance in perpetuity, which is something that the project cannot count on. I do get that certain topics have both a good case for some status categorization and a large enough user base actively maintaining them that it can work, but in this case, are there really enough members of these groups that they need to be diffused by status? Can this not be better presented with a gallery page? I'm not trying to question the veracity of idol group fans, or even claim that these categories are not being correctly maintained at the moment, but it isn't a good basis for reliable indefinite categorization. Josh (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intersection categories like this are discouraged as per the simplicity principle of COM:CAT. While people often confuse between the two types of green spaces, gardens and parks are quite different things. According to Wikidata, a garden is a "planned space set aside for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants", while a park is a "permanently dedicated recreation area, often open to the public and generally characterized by natural, historic, or landscape features". If a green space is a garden as well as a park, then that can be categorized under both. However, that doesn't mean we should have intersection categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Zoos can be described as either gardens (zoological gardens) or parks (zoological parks). So they should be categorized under both gardens and parks categories separately and not under this container category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you seen the number of child categories and their contents? There would be a huge amount of work is dispersing these to one or other of the parents. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that I disagreed. I'm just saying that's it a lot of work. I don't see it being done by a bot. So that's a lot of manual dispersion work. Who going to volunteer for that? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Thanks for stepping into this one. A couple of quick baselines:
Are Category:Gardens and Category:Parks truly distinct? I presume there is some overlap, but do both contain portions that do not fit within the other, i.e. are there both gardens that are not parks and parks that are not gardens? Are Category:Zoos likewise overlapping these two in some instances but distinct from one or the other in at least some instances?
Is there any value to retaining this level of hierarchy to gather gardens, parks, and possibly zoos specifically for some purpose?
There are several gardens that don't have park facilities, especially botanical gardens (e.g. Category:Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Indian Botanic Garden). Similarly, there are parks that don't necessarily have garden elements, for example Category:Park Circus Ground, Category:Oval Maidan, Mumbai. Category:Zoos might be recreation areas with wild animals (zoological parks) or displays of both wild animals and plants (zoological gardens). I think the only thing zoos are distinct from gardens and parks (including national parks) is that they are planned spaces with collections of different species of wild animals, and the animals are not necessarily native to the spaces (i.e. ex situ conservation, as opposed to in situ conservation in national parks).
As said before, I don't really like intersectional categories, as per the Simplicity Principle and the arguments at Commons:Intersectional categories. We should always strive for categories covering single topics. This is why we have eliminated categories like "buildings and structures", "roads and streets", "nude or partially nude people", "science and technology" etc.
Comment. We have to keep in mind that in many languages traditionally the spaces that are essentially parks bear the word "garden" in their names. Consider Summer Garden for example that is correctly placed into Category:Parks in Saint Petersburg. So the attempts of total separating between parks and gardens might result in somewhat confusing consequences. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unnecessary category, since none of the two files listed in this category are related to the Danish attack in Hooghly. The first one shows a painting of the former Dutch (not Danish) colony of Chinsurah near Hooghly, while the second one shows former Danish settlements in India and Indonesia. The second one does not even show Serampore (a former Danish colony), let alone Hooghly. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another unnecessary category, this time in Kerala. Like the previous category, its two files are not related to the Kerala Soil Museum, although both files are related to soils and Kerala. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't know anymore. What would be the purpose of Category:Surnames and what would be the difference with the flat list? It has now about 2.000 more subcategories than the flat list. JopkeB (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly specific and inaccurate. Not all are islands (e.g. Belize). Not all are states (e.g. Insular areas of the United States). If retained, then correct the capitalisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Sbb1413 who seems to have made many additions to this category that did not conform to the UN list. I am now removing those. I think with the UN list this is a clear keep, but it cannot turn into a catchall. - Jmabel ! talk17:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what the status of "Associate Members of United Nations Regional Commissions" is. Are they SIDS? How can they be since they are not states? Is a subsidiary category needed for them? Since there is an emerging consensus that it should be retained, might a split be in order (states vs associates)? Should it be renamed to something like "List of UN Small Island Developing States"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
What is this? Is my translation in English correct? Is it an independant country, or is it part of Turkey? Where is it located? JopkeB (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no reference to such a republic. Muslim Cretans had abandoned the island by 1909. Laurel Lodged (talk)
Please change the spelling of the category to "Category:SVG coat of arms elements - American Bald Eagles" with capital letters for "American Bald Eagles" especially for the word "American" because it is a country. Thanks in advance and Happy 4th of July! 109.76.230.18019:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear what this category is supposed to be. These files are already tagged with categories that have a clearer scope. –Fredddie™22:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mxn added some subcategories [2][3] that currently have diagrams, but aren't specifically about diagrams. The problem with this approach is that it assumes no new files are added. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a convention around here that the “series” categories are for diagrams only. Most of them are already subcategories of “Diagrams of” categories. In an ideal world, those would not be limited to diagrams but would have subcategories of their own for diagrams. But that would be a huge change that goes over my head.
i prefer "male superheroes" and "female superheroes". and then there must be superheroes that have no gender, like a robot or whatever, which can maybe go into "genderless superheroes". RZuo (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any opinions with "male superheroes" and "genderless superheroes". I just want to rename "female superheroes" to "superheroines", since the latter is the more established name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer "female superheroes" and do not agree that "superheroines" is more established, as that is an old-fashioned term. Nosferattus (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I'm not convinced that "superheroines" is really the more established name, or that it should even come down to that. Realistically, the most important thing is that the name be readily identifiable and understandable to the largest scope of potential users to permit the easiest browsing of categories to both add and locate relevant files. I think superheroines (or actresses) is fine in isolation as a term, but that when presented with potential subs of Superheroes, parsing between Female superheroes and Male superheroes is better than between Superheroines and Male superheroes as it is more instantly obvious that they are parsed on the basis of gender (the visible word arrangement even gives our minds clues before actually reading the words). Obviously any other genders fit in to this scheme as well. Josh (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently this category holds 14 photos of buildings hosting those ministeries. Maybe a better name can be found. If it's for buildings, that should be in the category name. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wiktionary, the word “venue” has a nuance of the building or structure like a theater, auditorium, arena; On the other hand, the word “space” means, more abstract, an extent across two or three dimensions for to do something. As a result, this category may include the temporary spaces other than the permanent venues, for example, (1) an aisle in a record store temporarily widened to host an in-store concert for sales promotion, (2) Rental studio or practice space that are not normally operated as a venue but are used temporarily for an event. Note that the expression "event space" appears to be used in several countries, including English-speaking countries. If you have never used this expression, please ignore it. Instead, others use this category for reasonable reasons. (I apologize for not having time to discuss this in detail because I am busy this weekend due to a sudden illness in my family) --Clusternote (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that could mean "event spaces" is broader than "event venues" but then why the parenthetical "(venues)".
In any case, I think it is a useless distinction. As I've so often remarked in CfD's lately: categorization is about navigation, not ontology. It is OK if categories are not ontologically perfect, as long as it is clear to someone navigating the "category tree" which way to go. - Jmabel ! talk23:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your point is reasonable; the parenthesis (venues) of this category is a kind of my darty hack; In general, the "spaces" may be the generic notion of the "venues", thus event spaces is better to set as the parent category. However it is slightly hard task to create well-designed abstract categories immediately... On such case, rather than immediately creating the expected category, I tend to create a subset of it (i.e.Event spaces (venues)), as shown in the diagram on the right. What to do next is create the expected generic category event spaces, then the contents of issued sub-cat Event spaces (venues) could be moved to it. --Clusternote (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that this addition makes the category structure more complicated than necessary. As long as there is no clear description showing the difference with Category:Event venues ("Event spaces are ....") and showing the dire necessity of it, I propose to merge Category:Event spaces (venues) into Category:Event venues. JopkeB (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to do is: on the more large effort to systematically categorize the media about the entertainment events based on the 5W1H (i.e. Who, What, When, Where, Why, How), try to resolve the potential discrepancies between "Where" attribute and the facility/building categorization, beforehand. On the previous my example, the live houses (a type of music venues, sometimes called "night clubs"), theaters, stadiums could be naturally categorize to the "Event venues" (as the subcategory of facility category, Entertainment venues); however, the temporary utilization of the corner of the record shops, rental studios, exhibition halls, are not the dedicated event venues as the facilities/buildings; Instead, it should categorize more generalized category, such like a "Event spaces", in my idea. I think the above idea might naturally emerge in the process of categorizing the media about the entertainment events for thousands of times. --Clusternote (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched the contents of that page and there is no mention of Buildings, and the only mentions of Facilities are twice in the proposed description of a other subcategory, Leisure venues. In the discussion you brought up that has now been closed, I can't see any evidence of any explicit discussion of anything other than buildings and facilities. In my eyes, above your claim seems not related to discussion on this page. --Clusternote (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
isnt any space usable for events? buildings, outside of buildings, public parks, closed parks, roads, streets, somewhere in the mountains, lakes... what is not event space? RZuo (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: Presumably we'd only use this category for spaces (or types of spaces) associated with a fair number of events, but it does call into question whether this category is really useful at all. Category:Event venues does seem to cluster together a range of types of spaces that do seem to belong clustered together; this category not so much. - Jmabel ! talk01:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: , oh sorry for my explanation. My final goal is (1) to rename the current Event spaces (venues) to Event spaces, and (2) make it (one of the) parent categories of Event venues. However in my observation, the parent hierarchy of Event venues' includes the notion of buildings and facilities, and it is not so simple, therefore currently I'm pending it and try to consider the best solution. best, --Clusternote (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more polite. I do not like your nasty remarks.
I am seriously trying to solve a problem here, namely make Category:Event spaces (venues) redundant. That might be done by changing a current parent with another one: Structures instead of Buildings. You asked for examples about structures not being buildings, I gave you several and I gave you one within the current venues category structure. JopkeB (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's already redundant. I disagree with Clusternote's stated concern, but would not really care if we accede to it. - Jmabel ! talk04:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my eyes, this type of discussion seems slightly pointless; the needs of new categories are normally rationalized by the existence of files not fit in current category structure; however this discussion ignore it. What drive to ignore it ? --Clusternote (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clusternote You are correct, it is the files which should be the ultimate driver for categorization, not creating structure for its own sake. I was assuming while reading this that sufficient actual files existed to support the categories being discussed, is this not true? Josh (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions and proposal
Question is: What is the difference between Category:Event spaces (venues) and Category:Event venues? Can both categories have clear descriptions showing their differences OR can both categories be merged?
Answers:
Up to now no clear descriptions were given to show their differences.
There are oposite opnions about the usefulness of the destinction:
Jmabel !, JopkeB and RZuo think both categories can be merged. Categorization is about navigation, not ontology. A category structure should not be more complicated than is necessary.
I am already disgusted by the manner in which you have been disrupting the discussion by ignoring the answers, asking the same questions over and over again, falsely claiming that the discussion has already been discussed in another Commons discussion that is not directly relevant, and ignoring the falsehoods when they are pointed out, which is contrary to the general manner of discussion in general society.
Please respond to the answers in the thread in which they are given.
If your claim (i.e. already discussed elsewhere) is pointed out as blatant false, admit it or add explanation to it.
The raison d'etre of this category is
In several countries, the concept of "Event spaces" is frequently used instead of "Event venues".
The reason for Spaces rather than Venues is that the "event spaces" themselves claim to be different from the dedicated permanent venues for general entertainment.
The existence of a category (beginning with) "Event spaces" is useful both for navigation purposes and for assigning categories to files.
No matter how confusing and protracted this kind of discussion is, and no matter how hard you try to get the community to accept your proposal; You should recognize that the concept of Event spaces is widespread in the real world, and that it is more convenient for more people to have a category started with "Event spaces" than to be forced to merge into a another named category "Event venues". Wikimedia Commons should not be a place where you deprive many people of convenience for the sake of your personal will.
--Clusternote (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you claimed that "Event places that is not fit with Category:buildings by function, can not categorized well."
so please move everything that's a building out of your category, so that others can see what you use this category for. RZuo (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah pardon, I am sorting old maps, currently from atlases of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. France is reliably covered in thoses atlases, and I do try get at least a few maps right despite the constantly changing administrative areas. And when in doubt, at least all of southern France is "Occitany/i/e/a". So of course I checked if there is any definition in either of the "Old maps of" categories, then checked above for a definition in either of the "maps of" categories, and they were always either blank or "use the appropriate category" (without mention how to find out what 'appropriate' means).
So thanks to your comment, I checked the parents of the parents of the parent categories, and the destinction is hidden in "Occitania" and "Occitanie", yet never repeated in the map-categories where that definition would also be needed. I would like to ask you to insert definition and/or guidance on how maps are to be categorized at least at the key levels. A prominent example map could also be helpful, instead of street signs. Then I'd consider this CfD done, and structural changes are not needed at all.
By the way, I am also missing helpful guidances in basically all historical regions of France. For example I'm not even sure if maps of either of the two Burgundies really belong into "Old maps of Bourgogne". Many historical regions don't even have pre-existing map-categories yet, so I needed to create for example "Old maps of Quercy", "Old maps of Bordelais", "Maps of Artois" or "17th-century maps of Xaintonge" all on my own. --Enyavar (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Old maps of <placename>" aren't really any different of any "ABC of <placename>"-categories. If you wish a description, you could add an infobox.
Agreed, just because some 'maps of <place>' are valid categories, doesn't mean we have to create them for every conceivable place. The place itself should be a recognized topic on Commons (i.e. have its own place category). There should be enough maps in that category to warrant a sub to diffuse them to, and there should be enough non-map content in that category to warrant diffusing them from. Josh (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not understood this as a deletion discussion before, so of course keep both. But if no action is undertaken, miscategorizations will inevitably occur again, as the category name itself does not make clear the difference. Best, --Enyavar (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The universality principle of COM:CAT says, "Identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization. The categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, and local dialects and terminology should be suppressed in favour of universality if possible. Analogic categorization branches should have an analogic structure." Since the parent category uses "dual carriageway(s)", the subcats should use the name too. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Divided highways" is an American term for what the Brits call "dual carriageways". Since we used the British term for this topic, the subcats should follow the British term too, per the aforementioned universality principle. It is unnecessary to create categories for roads named "highways". Highways include both roads designated as "highways", as well as roads connecting settlements that are not called "highways". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for the change you suggested. "meta"-level can overlap in various ways with actual names. If needed, create a redirect. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don't think the universality principle is a good idea when we have national variants of English, we normally expect things to be at their national English even if different to the main topic category as noted per C2C. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In this case I find it useful that the topic names are at the front of the category name ("Clothing advertising", "Telecommunication advertising", etc.): so you can scan the subcategories rather easily and quickly.
@1. The subcategories with "advertisements" in the category name should be removed to (a subcategory of) Category:Advertisements (if it is about an advertisement medium) or Category:Advertisments by product should be created for them (if it is about a product).
@2. Do you have an example of such a super long name?
No, I am not opposing "a consistent naming format", I just find it useful that the topic names are at the front of the category name, in this case. JopkeB (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so we will go with "xx advertising" then, if no one objects in a few months.
I think you assessed "Monarchs in Ethiopia" correctly. That there are some other categories in Commons that might not be ideal doesn't really matter. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful; all subcategories seem to belong in "Monarchs of Ethiopia". ("Of" "in" and "from" have specific meanings and should not be assumed to be interchangeable! If we had free licensed images of, say, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom visiting Ethiopia, she would be a "Monarch in Ethiopia". The category does not contain any examples of monarchs from elsewhere photographed in Ethiopia.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly nothing useful. Another case where someone was probably too focused on ontology rather than navigation. Up-merge. - Jmabel ! talk17:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Manchester did not exist until 1974. Before that these categories should be in History of Lancashire or History of Cheshire. Rathfelder (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things are generally categorized by where they are now rather than where they were when they functioned. An image of Oldham taken in 1935 would still be appropriate for the Greater Manchester rather than Lancashire category due to currently being in Greater Manchester. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This category is "empty and is obviously unusable, unlikely to be ever meaningfully used". It is rather impossible to find free images of Karisma Kapoor in 2011. This might be the reason of the nom's nomination. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category is certainly not one of the important categories, but the number of files it contains cannot be an argument. There are several similar categories and it fits into this scheme. Every category starts small. --XRay💬17:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a constructive suggestion at this point as an alternative to destructive deletion: How would it be if the categories that contain only a few files were filled first? That might be just as much work as submitting a deletion request. After all, quite a few people have to deal with a deletion request. --XRay💬17:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally subdivision by settlement and county are better than district. Many readers probably won't know what district a place is in but will know the settlement or county so at least we could still have a category for the town on architecture even if we have one for the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This museum has been called many things, but the official name appears to be Musée lapidaire Saint-Pierre (see the French Ministry of Culture). Are there objections to moving the category to "Musée lapidaire Saint-Pierre (Vienne)" and changing the current name to a redirect? Choliamb (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: Generally, taxi services (taxi transport) should be distinguished from taxi vehicles, similarly as buses are subcategory of bus transport and trams are a subcategory of tram transport. Taxi services is a broader item and have more aspects than only vehicles: there exist also files related to taxi stands, taxi tickets, taxi drivers, taxi regulations and documents, taxi-related road signs, taxi apps etc.
Taxi automobiles are undoubtedly the prototypical kind of taxi vehicles, which is usually understood under the term "taxi". It is true that other types of taxi service derive their names from that basic type. For "taxi automobiles", "taxis" can be suitable default name. Other types of road taxis (motorcycle taxis, taxi vans, bike taxis as rickshaws etc.) and non-road taxis (taxi boats, taxi aircraft) should remain special subcategories of "taxi vehicles by type".
If the aim is to simplify categorization and avoid duplication, it is not desiderable to add a new category tree Vehicles for hire. Above all, the expression "vehicles for hire" indicates rather Vehicle rental (rental vehicles), while "taxi" is a specific service, where you rent a vehicle with a driver and you buy the driver's service: not only the act of driving itself, but also finding a suitable way to your destination. If some non-automobile services call themselves "taxi", they want to emphasize the specific similarity of their service with a classic car taxi. We have no better term for that. The expression "vehicles for hire" is not so specific, not distinguishing from rental vehicles. It is also specific to a taxi that you usually hire it for one ride, not for a longer period. Shared taxi can also be counted as a form of taxi, although there is no "hire" to speak of here: it is a form of shared public transport. However, the microbuses can be identical as for the classic taxi. Some municipalities also operate so-called "senior taxi" – special social service for senior citizens. They are rather "ordered" than "hired". --ŠJů (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its subcats don't follow any consistent naming convention. I propose to rename all of them into "politicians of [country] by office". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category is for media related to athletes attaining a milestone in their sport. For example, this photo depicts Major League Baseball pitcher John Smoltz striking out 3000 batters over his career. The category name is about as simple and straightforward as possible. Mindmatrix23:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now; this category clearly has potential. The biggest impediment to adding files to this category is that the word 'milestone' is not used on such files, but rather the specific milestone is mentioned (usually), so files tend to be difficult to find. Mindmatrix13:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably didn't create this category exactly, I created it because I saw a red link in the files. I agree with the above, it should be merged. Best, Gadir (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you allow an outsider to throw a question on your discussion table? I think when you say "sportspeople" it doesn't only include athletes but also referees, managers, trainers, et al. Does Commons have a concept/category that is exclusive for the people who participate directly at a sports activity like Category:Rugby players, Category:Tennis players that contain all "players" but leave outside their coaches, managers, trainers...?
Good point, actually the category "Male sportspeople" is linked to the Wikidata item and Wikipedia article of "athlete" so a new subcat would need to be created if all also are sportspeople or the category be renamed. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the word itself should become dab, since it also commonly refers to "official agreement intended to resolve a dispute or conflict". RZuo (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although there has been a CFD regarding this category, the question remains is whether this intersectional category is redundant to Category:Activism, as activism covers both (political) demonstrations and protests. I had also created separate Category:Political demonstrations and Category:Protests categories as byproducts of the previous CFD. Since the category tree is widely used, the discussion should not be closed by any uninvolved editor or admin without consent of at least one of its participants. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't discuss on whether demonstrations should be a sub of protests or vice versa. It has been decided by discussions that the two topics are overlapping but distinct. The main reason for nominating this category is the presence of categories like Category:Activism against air travel infrastructure construction. Such categories demonstrate that "demonstrations and protests" can be replaced by shorter "activism" without the problems of intersectional categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found the following CfDs in a quick search, plus some category talk page discussion:
Maybe I misunderstood you but activism isn't just demonstrations and protests but also lots of other activities etc. Thus the category is valid as is as a subcategory of Activism and should be kept as is. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you so clearly distinguish between protests and demonstrations and would that be a constructive use of time rather than making things more dispersed and harder to find? I think they are very similar and very much overlapping, often hard to disentangle. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective I agree that differentiation seems inevitably based on perspective, which makes it problematic. If one sees the action from the perspective of the cause/policy it supports, it is a demonstration, but if one sees it in light of the cause/policy it is opposite, it is a protest. There are a large number of connotations attached to both of these terms. I don't think that alone means we can't have these as sub-categories to illustrate the concepts, but I do think a good NPOV basis will have to be developed to maintain them with any kind of utility. Josh (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the real scope of this category? I think we need to answer this to correctly decide on how to 'fix' it.
Is this category just an umbrella for demonstrations and/or protests? (i.e. anything that could be categorized under Category:Demonstrations, Category:Protests, or both) If so, then ideally, all it would have under it are those two categories, and all files would be diffused into one, the other, or both of these sub-categories. If this is true, I see no reason why we need this level, and Category:Demonstrations and Category:Protests can live directly under Category:Activism. If we do see a need to keep it, it should be renamed to something to reflect its parentage such as Category:Activist public events, Public events in activism, or some such.
Is this category specifically for events which are both demonstrations and protests simultaneously? This would be a far more restrictive scope, but would at least reflect the current name. If this is the case, we would not be able to have Demonstrations or Protests under it, since they presumably are not identical and thus include contents that are not under the other. I'm not sure what the value of this category would be in that case, or if a better name would still be warranted, such as "protest demonstrations" or some such.
Is this category broader than just demonstrations and protests? (i.e. any kind of activist expression even if it would not strictly be categorized under either Demonstrations or Protests) If so, then the name is certainly not sufficient, and something along the lines of "expressions of activism" would apply. If broad enough, it may indeed be merely redundant to Category:Activism and worthy of a merge with that category.
Are there Protests that are not Demonstrations? (i.e. are these really parallel or vertical categories) The above three are based on the presumption that these two are really distinct categories with some overlap, but each with some contents which are not valid contents of the other. Is this really the case? Apologies to @Sbb1413, as he expressed not really wanting this CfD to go here, but I think we need to at least define this before we can really decide on the bigger matter.
The first 3 are not really independent questions, but more a multiple choice: The TLDR may be "Is this category just a combo of D's and P's, is it more narrow than that, or is it broader than that?" Josh (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category as long as all those pics remain hosted in Commons. By the way, this category should be renamed to "nude female humans with hands in hair". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways I can't speak for @Sbb1413, but if the issue is that the content is out of scope, the correct process is a deletion request for the files you believe should no longer be retained. The category is really secondary to that, as if there are legitimately no remaining files in a category, it can be speedy deleted as empty. However, so long as content remains for which the category is a valid categorization for (per Commons category policies), the category must remain. Categories do not create content, it is the content that drives the category's existence. Categories exist to organize hosted files, the ultimate end use that users may apply to said files is irrelevant to the categorization. As for the rename he suggested, that would merely bring this category in line with some recent CfD standards that have been adopted, not necessarily an answer to the original issue stated. Josh (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I agree with the rename. I haven't gotten to this one yet, but am slowly working through all of the 'nude or partially nude' categories and getting them sorted into their correct categories. Josh (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep currently has 2 subcategories and 85 files, at least a fair number of which seem solidly in scope. BTW the separation of media into "nude" categories is not solely for voyeurism; I've observed many created by users wishing to have main categories without 'unexpected' nude images. Some such categories don't seem of much use to me, but this one is well populated and seems unobjectionable. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation That is correct. As I understand it, the primary purpose for diffusing into nudity categories is not so much to try and gather nude content so much as to provide an additional knowing click for users before they are confronted with unexpected nudity in a topic. I try and always include the {{Commons nudity}} template with such categories (and build that into my templates) to remind users that only content within our educational scope is permitted and that other content is subject to deletion. Josh (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Yangtze River category on the other side then? Should categories be made and maintained in such a way that only a couple of very cult and intelectual people -like yourself- could understand and use them correctly? 191.125.164.13623:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, there do appear to be some contents which are specific places, not necessarily diffused by country and/or river, but which are indeed riverside places. Treating Populated riverside places as an index would mean a file depicting a populated place on a river would necessarily have to first be diffused by country and river before it could be categorized here.
Question So the first thing I think we need to determine is, do we want Populated riverside places to be an index (as it currently seems to primarily be) and thus to name and structure it accordingly and govern content on that basis, or do we want it to be a topical category where any files depicting populated places on rivers can go and move the 'by country' functions to proper new or existing index categories? Josh (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your thoughts about the renaming, but the category “Populated coastal places” don't have a sense. If we leave this definition of this category, then literally 90% of the world’s populated areas can be placed there. As currently defined, this category has the potential to become a "dumping ground" for everything. It seems to me that we need to stimulate the filling of subcategories, such as categorytype. Creating a category like “Rivers in a city with a population of five thousand people” and throwing 5-6 files of even probably different rivers there seems to me to be a much more correct categorization than proposals to save this category. Miikul (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont get these categories. most human settlements sit next to a body of water. those that dont are the minority.
Comment In the English dialects I'm familiar with, "sleeping cars", "sleeper cars" or just "sleepers" (in context) are common; I don't recall ever before hearing the phrase "sleeping trains" (which to me conjures up an image of a children's cartoon of an anthropomorphic locomotive taking a nap). Google verbatim search shows "About 1,670,000 results" for "sleeping cars"; "About 37,400 results" for "sleeping trains". "Sleeping trains" does not seem to be the common construction, and agree it should not be what we call them on Commons. Agree that what seems an undiscussed unilateral move should be reverted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete per COM:C2. CFD is unnecessary. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Support keep and rename to UK spelling per User: Laurel Lodged. The terms "arms" and "armor" refer to various different things depending on context. The phrase "arms and armour" refers to a specific set of things. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose There is already a precedent. Category:Former Keyakizaka46 members ウィ貴公子 (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
and the arguments at Commons:Intersectional categories. We should always strive for categories covering single topics. This is why we have eliminated categories like "buildings and structures", "roads and streets", "nude or partially nude people", "science and technology" etc.
Agree One category is enough, let it indeed be Category:Surnames. JopkeB (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Resolved by consensus
Merge to Male sportspeople. Basically a duplicate category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Question What is the real scope of this category? I think we need to answer this to correctly decide on how to 'fix' it.