Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/07

Category should be renamed to Category:SVG checker pieces to keep consistency with other subcategories at Category:SVG. --ZooFari 15:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean chess, not checker, right? Rocket000 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yes, Category:SVG chess pieces. ZooFari 20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Rocket000 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category redundant with Category:Town halls by architectural style. I already moved its only occupant, Category:Mannerist town halls, into the better category, so this category is now empty. --Powers (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "architectural" implied? -- User:Docu at 18:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, probably, but that's the populated category, and it matches the other categories in Category:Architectural styles by building function. Powers (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's redirect it there then. -- User:Docu at 13:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. (It was already empty.) Rocket000 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this would be an appropriate page but it strikes me as an inappropriate category. I can't imagine any objective criteria to determine whether particular points (railway track switch) qualifies as "interesting". --Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. Rather a bizarre name for a category. "Interesting" is clearly a matter of opinion - maybe I find them all "interesting", maybe none at all - and "points" could be any "point" of any description, including the general sense ("Now that's an interesting point you've just brought up..."), not just railway points. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

images in the category of switches that are not commonly seen. interesting designs and solutions. thats all Hapesoft (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I stand by my original remark and strongly suggest a gallery page rather than a category. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" is a subjective term and hard to be defined. Not suitable for a Commons category. Yasu (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of gallery of railway track switches, a section on ones which are rarely seen might be very useful. As the name of a category, this is strange. Jonathunder (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now placed these all in a gallery on a page Unusual railway points. Hapesoft, if you or someone else want to add further image descriptions to that page, that would be great. I will remove the category, given that we seem to have consensus that it is inappropriate as a category. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category deleted; created equivalent page Unusual railway points. - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

has been typo for one year as it should be Stadtmühle. Delete the old cat, or move it, please. I have created the correct cat. Why is this task so extremely annoying compared to wp? --Pommesgabel (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you didn't try {{Speedy}}

 Done  Docu  at 11:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct syntax appears to be "Post of (country name)" as seen inside the directory ( Category:Post_by_country which currently has both "Post in Barbados" and "Post of Barbados" already in it). --CaribDigita (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, made a redirect of the old name. --rimshot^talk 15:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requested. Bot created category—there is no countryside in the City of London. --—innotata 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's never going to have anything in it. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for discussion request: Created by typo, should be Jungermannia with R. Proper category already created. --Tappinen (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread. I added {{speedy|typo, see Category:Jungermannia}} to the category.  Docu  at 10:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better syntax would be, "Cat:Government buildings in Bridgetown" I put it here because I need an admins help to delete the old one. --CaribDigita (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, renamed, unused. --rimshot^talk 16:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found in the Category:Awards of Belarus two identical subcategories. These are Category:Hero of Belarus and Category:Medal «Golden Star» of Belarus. My suggestion is to delete Category:Medal «Golden Star» of Belarus and all files from it move to Category:Hero of Belarus. --SZv (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be closed. SZv (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, looks sorted now. --rimshot^talk 07:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Books by genre
• Category:Books by function

Merge "Books by function" into "Books by genre": These two categories seem rather ill-defined. When should an image or subcategory go into one or the other category? Currently the usage note at "Books by function" says "Books according to their function (i.e. books that have a function rather than being read 'just' for enjoyment. Any book that could also be considered a 'tool' in the wider sense)." Does that mean archaeology books, economics books and science books – indeed, all non-fiction books – should be here rather than in "Books by genre", where they are currently? I suggest merging "Books by function" into "Books by genre". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose To answer your query re non-fiction books: No, they would not all be in "books by function" (though some might conceivably be both in "books by function" AND "books by genre"). An economics book which you note as an example could instead be sorted (as appropriate) into "Educational books" and/or "Reference books".

I think the key in the current definition is "Could you describe the book (book category) as a TOOL?". You can describe a pattern book as a tool - it has a function beyond being read just for the heck of it, like, for example, a science fiction novel. So has a Guestbook, it fulfills a function, i.e. "Books by function". A Guestbook meanwhile is not a "genre" in my view, and thus a merge for these categories would not make sense. Ingolfson (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I guess I'm having a difficulty with the "is it a tool?" test you proposed. Surely all non-fiction books "have a function beyond being read just for the heck of it", as you put it. Books on agriculture and economics, for example, have the function of teaching people about agricultural techniques and economic theories respectively. I am just thinking it is not very useful to have two categories where there is going to be a lot of overlap – essentially, most images of non-fiction books are going to end up in both categories. Perhaps we can consider dividing books according to fiction and non-fiction? Under fiction we would have different fiction genres (horror, suspense, romance, etc.), and under non-fiction would be books on different subjects (agriculture, economics, etc.). Cookbooks, log books and pattern books would fall under the non-fiction category as well, though I'm not sure what is the best term to describe them collectively. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentI must say I don't agree with your concern - I have little issue with that overlap, and little issue with the test (the fact that it can be a bit fuzzy could be said for the choices when categorising maybe half of Commons categories). If a book HAS multiple applications, so why not sort them in both. And the categories sit side by side, so it's not like categorising them in both is against the sorting rules either.

The only compromise I can see at the moment is to restrict the "function" logic a bit (and amend the definition). I.e. make the "tool" aspect stronger, but more direct too. Therefore, a cookbook would still remain in "Books by function", as would a pattern book, but a science book or general non-fiction would stay outside. Ingolfson (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Sure, I look forward to seeing your revised definition. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:Textbooks (for the purpose of teaching) would also be another function; indeed the come in both Student (assignments and questions) and Instructor (questions with answers) versions.
SBaker43 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment "Genre" is used in the book business to indicate certain subjects: mysteries, sf, juvenile literature, self help books. its a marketing term of sorts. "function" is interesting here, referring to books that are used differently than books for edification, entertainment or education. the two should not be merged, though they are both somewhat vague, along with Category:Books by topic, Category:Books by type and Category:Non-fiction books, another book business term. I think the best we can do is define them as best we can, and try to fit various categories in as best we can. this is the human side of bibliographic science.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to merge the two categories, so I am withdrawing my proposal and closing this discussion which began in 2010. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a category renaming discussion here. Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, as this category has since been converted to a redirect. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for discussion request: I wonder if this is a useful category, as we already have Canal locks and it is not so simple to categorise locks in rivers with a parallel lock canal. E.g. The river Meuse have canals where the locks are situated. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is somewhere a place to discuss categories. But this is a simple case which can be dealt with by a move proposal. Could they be fused to a Category:Canal and river locks ? If yes, make a simultaneous move proposal on the two categories to start the discussion there. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts. Have a look at category:Canal locks and you'll find that it is not so simple to move all these files. One has to rename a hell of a lot of categories that way. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction is useful, but if you want to take this to the right forum it would be Commons:Categories for discussion. - 05:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Category:Locks (water transport) in line with en:Lock (water transport). Multichill (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Much better idea. Otherwise you have to investigate the circumstances where the lock is situated. In my opinion a lot of work and with doubtful results, if any. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Pline (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections by this weekend I'm going to mass move Canal Locks to Locks (water transport). Multichill (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, especially since many locks are on the boundary of a canal and a river. --Foroa (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Canal locks is the term that is generally used. A stop lock on the boundary of a canal and another waterway- river or rival canal company to prevent water loss is a special case. The Rochdale Canal has 90 pound locks in is course do it can climb over the Pennines, and a 2 stop locks. Similarly, in my book a river doesn't have locks- when it is modified to use locks it becomes a navigation see Mersey and Irwell Navigation. There is a subtle difference between searching for a article on how locks work- and needing to find an image of a feature on a canal.--ClemRutter (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about dock locks? Keith D (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the topic to comment on the merits of the different proposals, but on a related note, I think further clarification of the distinction between Category:Canal locks and Category:Sluices is needed. They're also badly overcategorized: Canal locks is a subcategory of Sluices, yet both categories are direct subcategories of River transport and Canals. Additionally, Sluices is both a child and parent of Weirs. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canal Locks as a subcategory of "Locks (water transport)" is needed - eg Category:Lock gates in Kingston upon Hull - these are not on a canal but someone (User:BotMultichillT) keeps adding them as canal locks. - so I've created Category:Locks (water transport) - there are probably other misplaced dock locks (note some docks locks are canal locks...) in the category.

I see no problem with "canal locks" as a subcategory.Imgaril (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if a river has locks on it is has been 'canalised' - this doesn't necessarily make "canal lock" always a good title.Imgaril (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into canal locks. It's hard to separate river locks and canal locks because of their integrated function, but while all river locks are at least related to canals/canalisation, not all canal locks are related to rivers. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Although there are places where it is not clear whether to call something a "river lock" or a "canal lock" -- the Mohawk River and Erie Canal come to mind -- there are quite a few river locks that are clearly not in canals -- the whole of the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Columbia, for example -- no one would say that any of those have been been canalized. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the Via Appia and adjecent monuments are strewn across Category:Via Appia, Category:Via Appia (Rome) and Category:Appia Antica (Rome), which makes it hard to locate (or even properly categorize) specific images -- Kleuske (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed hierarchy:

• Via Appia
  • Via Appia Antica
    • "Historical Images of the Via Appia" or "Via Appia (historical images)"),
    • "Monuments along the Via Appia" or "Via Appia (monuments)",
    • categories for individual monuments along the Via Appia Antica (there's a lot of those).
    • A more general category for monuments, graves, statues and sculptures not in any other category.
  • Via Appia Nuova (the modern Via Appia)

:Makes sense to me. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<snigger> Given the overwhelming interest in this proposal, i'll take it as an aye and call it consensus. Kleuske (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hierarchy proposed by Dall'Orto is optimal. Moreover, the problem of this old roman roads is that some times the old road = the new road; some other times the new road has a parallel way. For the Via Appia we have both situations. Sure in Rome the "old Via Appia" = the "new Via Appia" (so that the Category:Via Appia (Rome) must be a subcat of the old road Category:Via Appia Antica and at the same time of the new road Category:Via Appia. But this equality is not everywhere true for the rest of this way. Last but not least, I think that perhaps a more correct name for the "Category:Via Appia (Rome)" can be Category:Via Appia Antica (Rome). What do you think? --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I organized the Via Appia categories and files as follow :

• Category:Via Appia for the new road of the Appian Way from Rome to Brindisi;
• Category:Via Appia Antica for the old road of the Appian Way from Rome to Brindisi;
• Category:Via Appia (Rome) for the new road of the Appian Way in Rome and in his vicinity;
• Category:Via Appia Antica (Rome) for the old road of the Appian Way in Rome and in his vicinity.

- Category:Via Appia Nuova is now a redirect to Category:Via Appia.
- All the old monuments and tombs long the old Appian Way are now in the sub-categories of Category:Via Appia Antica (Rome) subdivided by miles from Rome.
- It is possible to produce new categories by monuments (e.g. "Ancient Roman mausoleums [or tombs] of [or long] the Via Appia Antica"), or by art artefacts (e.g. "Category:Ancient Roman sculptures [or reliefs] of [or long] the Via Appia Antica") if somebody needs them.
- Category:Historical images of Via Appia Antica and Category:Via Appia Antica in art are sub-categories at the same time of cat "Via Appia Antica" and "Via Appia Antica (Rome)" because they shows 90% (if not more) monuments long the old Appian Way in the vicinity of Rome.
--DenghiùComm (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, since it seems to have been resolved. ghouston (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend renaming to Category:University of Alabama alumni. This is a much simpler category name. It also matches the majority of categories in Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States and it also matches the sister entries in Wikipedia (see Category:University of Alabama alumni).
This recommendation is to standardize naming throughout Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States to "XXX alumni". Thanks! --FieldMarine (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an international project with many languages, we need to be more strict with the (few clear) naming rules. The basic commons category naming rule states "Topic [qualifier] [Qualifier]" and certainly not the topic at the end of the name as in "xxx alumni". "Alumni of xxx" is the implemented worldwide standard, and only in the USA, some harmonisation needs to be done. --Foroa (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is also an international project. Why should the rules be different for sister projects? I would think harmonisation and standardization across the projects would be helpful whenever possible. FieldMarine (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia you refer to is an English-speaking project (other Wikipediae use different, language-specific constructs for such cats, and internationalization of cat names is currently not technically possible), Commons is multilingual (and using English as a lingua franca) and therefore can have specific constraints. Using the syntax "X of Y" is a choice justified both by harmonization (with cats of uni alumni of other countries, but also with the thousands of similar differentiated cats present on Commons -- harmonization work on Commons didn't begin yesterday) and by the concern of using the simplest and most widely understandable English syntactic structures. --Eusebius (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support Foroa's point of view, which is really the Commons de facto standard - i.e. Alumni of XXX. Ingolfson (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have around 700 sister projects, each with their own standards. What's important on Commons is that we use a consistent (worldwide) naming and that categories are in line with the naming of their parent categories. Anyway, I would not be surprised to see the en:wikipedia category naming changed one day with its horrible (occasional) right-to-left syntax and not extensible/modular; try for example to extend this one: Category:University of Georgia alumni to Category:University of Georgia (US state), campus Sapelo Island, Marine alumni . --Foroa (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note there is a related discussion at the village pump[3]. Benchill (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support returning the category names to University of Alabama alumni etc. They appear to have been changed en masse without discussion, which is against the instructions. It ought to be possible to have a uniform system here and matching en:wikipedia, a divergent system isn't helpful, I think people won't bother to categorise files so often if Commons has it's own peculiar system. I personally dislike the "horrible" system on en isn't a sound reason to make broad changes. I appreciate using English may not be so popular with people who don't speak it, there ought to be a technical solution to this issue - multilingual categories, or a centralised category system for all projects. Benchill (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our role is to uniformise category name structures at all levels and to make them consistent. Uniformisation will happen anyway without questions asked. Disliking a horrible system is not so much a personal opinion but a personal wording for a technical solution that is flawed. --Foroa (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep as is. Per Eusebius & Foroa. Altairisfar_talk 07:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, since the name now matches most of the others in Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. ghouston (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I propose deletions to the following categories:

• Category:Hydro-electric schemes
• Category:Pumped storage schemes

Because there are no such things as "Hydroelectric Schemes" or "Pumped Storage Schemes" in general. Names of facilities such as these are just what they are called, not what it is. The contents of the second category can be directly moved to this category, while the first category can be sorted into subcats of this category. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if the "plant" is the entire "scheme" or just a "power station".

• Category:Galloway hydro-electric scheme includes a series reservoirs, dams, power stations. It could also include transformer stations and more.
• On the other hand, e.g. Category:Pumped-storage hydroelectric power plants includes categories for many different parts, without much consistency.

If there is a better name for a category that would group categories for an entire scheme, I would be glad to use that.  Docu  at 11:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, generally the "plant/station" refers to the whole scheme or facility. Similar to most "dam" titles referring to the dam and its power stations/plants, etc. Occasionally, we do hear different names which refer to particular parts of the whole facility, but that depends on the way its called locally. Either way, "schemes" are not any specific type or etc, its just an alternative way to say "the dam, its power station/dam, its lake, its etc etc"... People may or may not use "plant/station" or "scheme" in the names of their facilities, but that just the name, nothing else. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about "project" as part of the name to cover more general things? Would that help? Scheme seems a rather UKish word to this USian. (Category:Galloway hydro-electric scheme certainly could go inside a putative "hydroelectric project" (or "hydro-electric project" category). Hope that is helpful. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar. "Project" on the other hand, is generally used by the developers and other people behind the development. It is very unlikely that any facility would be referred to by such name by the general public. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Project" could indeed be another possibility. To sum it up, we have the following:

1. The entire facility/scheme/plant/station/project
2. a dam
3. a power generating station
4. a reservoir/lake
5. a transformer station
6. etc.

Thus we need to decide which term to use for categories grouping each part. For some, it already seems clear, i.e.

• For dams, we already got Category:Dams
• For reservoirs, we got Category:Reservoirs

I will think about unambiguous terms we could use for the others. A solution should bear in mind national differences in terminology and take in account that the purpose of some elements might not be limited to its role within the scheme.

It doesn't necessarily matter how the categories for specific "schemes" are called. If regional differences in terminology are too big, we could consider having separate names for some countries, but I'd rather avoid this.  Docu  at 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Docu. I mean no offence, but, this discussion is related to the above two mentioned categories. Lets stick to that for now. I would be happy to discuss individual category naming once this is done. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but you brought up "station" which could be both (1) and (3). We need a term for (1) that is different from (3).  Docu  at 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for a change. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I propose a rename of all of the categories in the mentioned category in the following way:

• Hydroelectric power in Country to Hydroelectricity in Country

Hydropower is the energy (including electrical) gained from water. And Hydroelectricity is the electrical energy obtained from Hydropower. Depending on consensus, the categories can also be renamed to a more parent-type Hydropower in Country. But either way, the current naming format is wrong; it should be Hydroelectricity or at least Hydropower, not Hydroelectric power. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose Redundant discussion with Category talk:Hydroelectricity. Category:Hydropower is used to drive watermills, waterwheels and probably other things too. category:Hydroelectricity is about the technology to generate electricity from hydropower, hydroelectric power is the resulting power of that. --Foroa (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Foroa. Just to clarify, this is not a redundant discussion; I did mention there that I will take it to CFD soon. To the topic, leaving the accuracy of "Hydroelectricity is about the technology to generate electricity from hydropower, hydroelectric power is the resulting power of that" aside, you still cannot have a category for "Hydroelectric power", even if the above is true or not. We currently only have files that show the "Hydroelectricity" technology. What files do we put into "Hydroelectric power"? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Neutral concerning Hydroelectricity in Country. After some further investigation and thinking, I come to the conclusion that both systems have their advantages and drawbacks. --Foroa (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for the change. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]