Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2011/02
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive February 2011
189.146.215.188 02:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Closed. It seems there wasn't a whole lot to discuss. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
spelling Clausule (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, misspelling. --rimshottalk 10:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
spelling Clausule (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, misspelling. --rimshottalk 10:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The category Raquel Oliveira is not valid 79.168.8.197 09:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC) The user that created the category Raquel Oliveira did not ask permission to Raquel Oliveira to create this category and did not ask permission to use the image of the Dancer Raquel Oliveira.
- Categories about notable people are created routinely once we got images of them. If the images are deleted, we generally delete the category.
- Apparently there is already a deletion request for one or the other image, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raquel Oliveira @ Festival Flamenco Lisboa 01.jpg. -- Docu at 17:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
it is using photographs with personality rights and that were obtained ilegally 79.168.8.173 23:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Kept. Lacks rational, photographs kept. Bidgee (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
please delete... have made Category:Niklas Landin Jacobsen Pusleogpixi (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Wrong name: Joop van den Ende. Clausule (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Joop van den Ende. --rimshottalk 10:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
wrong name and empty ShinePhantom (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tu-141 in Technical Museum Togliatti. --rimshottalk 10:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Should read Signs in Newport, Wales Saga City (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. --rimshottalk 10:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
à supprimer Kvardek du (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. --rimshottalk 10:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The Swedish name of the chapel is Sankta Birgittas kapell. The English equivalent would be Chapel of Saint Bridget or Saint Bridget Chapel, possibly with Bridget spelled as Brigid. Category names should generally be in English. There is some debate as to whether we should anglicise names of churches when there is no well-established English name, but I see no reason whatsoever for the name to be written in German.
Sikavarp is the name of a former settlement in the site where the chapel is located. The name has not been in active use since the area was deserted after trading privileges were revoked in the 16th century. The current name of the site is Kapelludden.
It is unknown whether the name refers to Bridget of Sweden or Brigid of Kildare. Most sources indicate the former. The only parent category at the moment is Category:Saint Brigid of Kildare churches, leaving out Category:Saint Bridget of Sweden churches (and all other relevant categories, such as geographical ones). I see three possible alternatives: make it a subcategory of both saints, make it a subcategory of the most likely saint, or make it a subcategory of neither. I see no reason for it to be a subcategory only of the least likely saint. I will make it a subcategory of both for now.
I propose renaming the category to Category:Sankta Birgittas kapell, Kapelludden. The disambiguation is needed in case a category is created for sv:Sankta Birgittas kapell, Göteborg. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request. This category just duplicates Category:Long Melford which is the full name of the vilage and the name used on enwiki --Oxyman (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep, it's currently a redirect, which solves the duplication issue and the redirect is helpful. FieldMarine (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept, no real reason not to keep the redirect. --rimshottalk 22:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The category was requested for speedy deletion with the reason: "The category is not needed as Kent only has one photo in the category and even that is being debated as deletable." by Aaaccc on 26 January 2011. The only included image was File:Steve Kent - Chair of the Board & Chief Commissioner - Scouts Canada.jpg. ŠJů (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete, The photo has been deleted therefore the category is empty and it is time for deletion. - Aaaccc (talk), 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, problems have been resolved. --rimshottalk 17:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
informatika 175.45.184.136 04:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Nothing to discuss. --rimshottalk 22:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Empty; no state in the Pacific by this name: vandalism? —innotata 23:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused and empty categories. --rimshottalk 22:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
i think i have a creswick painting,but not sure 173.78.169.214 20:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- But why want you delete this category? JDavid (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Closed, not a cfd. --rimshottalk 17:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The highway doesn't exist in the state, and there are no concrete plans for it to exist in the state at all for the foreseeable future. Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Only image is a shield, which can be included in the main I-73 category. Dough4872 04:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, per nom. --rimshottalk 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The highway doesn't exist in the state, and there are no concrete plans for it to exist in the state at all for the foreseeable future. Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, per nom. --rimshottalk 17:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
There's category:Maize and category:Corn (plus their mother Category:Zea mays). The division goes into subcategories i.e. Category:Corn-based food and it's daughter Category:Maize-based food.
Where's the line between the two, or should they be merged once and for all? --NVO (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Side note: Category:Corn Exchanges in the United Kingdom should not be a subset of "corn as maize", or should it (see en:Corn exchange) ? NVO (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would prefer a resolution to corn - 33.6 million Google images as opposed to 3.19 million for maize. -- Joadl (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I vote for maize. Note that in UK and other non-USA English, "corn" is a general term not specific to maize. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No strong opinion, but if we make it category:Maize , then the page category:Corn should continue to exist with a redirect and an explanation of this US/UK vocabulary distance. In America, you pretty much have to be either Spanish-speaking, college-educated, or a farmer to be familiar with the word "maize". - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:Corn is a disambiguation with links to maize and grain now, see [2]. Please feel free to improve the introduction, or to add further category links.
I'll take care for the corresponding harmonization of all those (partly doubled, or inconsistently named) subcategories within the next days. --:bdk: 23:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
There is the category: Drunken people for images of dunkards. I think, the purpose of the categories on Commons is to categorize images, not persons itself, their addictions etc. What for was Modest Mussorgsky placed to "Alcoholics"? Certainly, such categories as "porn actors" may help searching the relevant content, but it is implausible that personal categories classified as "alcoholics" contained large amounts of their drinking or drunk photos, as there are no people famous for drunkenness itself. ~ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved, because drunk ≠ alcoholic. You can be drunk and an alcoholic, but you can also be drunk without being an alcoholic. If we were to really categorise alcoholics, all images of any alcoholic would have to be in there, because you're an alcoholic even when you don't drink. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please remove this category (replaced by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:St%C3%A9phane_Poulhi%C3%A8s) Vlaam (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed you moved it. You could just redirect it by using {{category redirect|Stéphane Poulhiès}}
- -- Docu at 18:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Redirected. --rimshottalk 17:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Category is empty. --romanm (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Done – deleted, empty category --:bdk: 23:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Categories aren't lists. Also wholly redundant to Category:Roads in South Carolina. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, and merge to Category:Roads in South Carolina. FieldMarine (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete, clear-cut case. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Categories by User:Babydoll0409
[edit]I have some concerns about the user User:Babydoll0409 categorisation strategy. I have tried to have a word but I'm not the most subtle person. I have some concerns they may be using User:Baldboris99 as a sockpuppet. --JIrate (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? What is your problem with this user's categorization? --rimshottalk 07:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Closed, this has been quite enough time to wait for a follow-up. --rimshottalk 13:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Category:Postage stamps is redirected to Category:Stamps. I think, postage stamps should have their own subcategory - here and at every country level. There exist also revenue stamps and some other kinds of non-postal stamps. I propose to create special categories of Category:Postage stamps and move most of content from "Stamps" to "Postage stamps". --ŠJů (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Split Please see the long discussion at en:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_14#Category:Stamp_collections where the outcome was to keep en:Category:Stamp collections as well as en:Category:Philatelic collections as postage stamps are a sub-group of philatelic artefacts (which can include almost any document relating to a payment token or a waiver of payment including objects that have nothing to do with postage such as phone cards or parking permits). --Fæ (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - seems like a lot of work with little value to it (not that that has ever been an obstacle to the endless recategorization :-/ ) since the handful of non-postage stamps can easily be found as subcategories. We're not talking articles after all, this is just the image pile. Stan Shebs (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: there really seems to be no point in moving out virtually everything and leaving a couple of items. As Stan suggests it is a lot of work for little useful return and no real benefit to the reader or editor. Personally I can only see 2 categories staying, i.e., Category:Mercur Privat-Stadtbrief Expedition (Hannover) and Category:Rubber stamps that are not actually regarded as postage stamps. Ww2censor (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Stan Shebs and Ww2censor - it's just practical. NVO (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Off topic - would someone care to categorize files in Category:Britain Loves Wikipedia at The British Postal Museum & Archive? NVO (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. In theory, ŠJů is correct in identifying this inconsistency. But I would follow the arguments mentioned by Stan Shebs and Ww2censor. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Current system is more intuitive, easier to search and the wording is shorter. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Split, postage stamps to Category:Postage stamps, per nom & make it a subcat of Category:Stamps. This will allow the broader Stamps category to be used for media other then postage stamps, such as rubber stamps, etc. -FieldMarine (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Split, Category:Postage stamps, fiscal stamps, etc. Greudin (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Split Not all "stamps" are "postal stamps". --Accurimbono (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
No consensus: It is generally acknowledged that not all stamps are postage stamps. However, there are valid concerns that recategorization is not worth the effort. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Its name is in the singular while the convention is that plural nouns are used - in this case Jetties. Thus it should be deleted in favour of the plural. S a g a C i t y (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- comment: category:Jetties is now indiscriminately filled with images of piers. Right, the word is used in this sense too, but en:Jetty describes a very specific type of structure. Needs a cleanup? NVO (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- re: comment I agree! But am proposing one step at a time. I suspect that, in the long run, just as we have 'Harbours and Ports' we will also have 'Piers and Jetties' and - in the same vein - 'Breakwaters and Moles'. There seem to be cultural differences in usage beyond AmE and BrE and I cannot locate a helpful dictionary definition that points out essential differences between the terms. S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Redirect - change to Category redirect to Category:Jetties. -FieldMarine (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll redirect it to Jetties. ghouston (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Used as an example for the "Animals/Plants" versus "Fauna/Flora" problem
Trying to get this resolved here; it has been languishing for many months without solution, while the problem has increased in scope.
Basically, the problem is that COM:TOL has been inconsistent; the zoology people have generally used "animals", while the botany people have generally used "flora".
This has created a lot of inconsistency, as by and by the approaches have been mixed, with some zoology people using "fauna" and some botany people using "plants".
However, after thinking through this matter, I have concluded that the scheme to use must apparently be "animals/plants". The reason is fairly simple: the "flora-fauna/animals-plants" dichotomy is obsolete, dating back to the 18th century. By now, we know that fungi and protists and prokaryotes are neither animals nor plants, and consequently we cannot categorize them as either on Commons. But there is no corresponding language-neutral term for these; "microfauna" and "mycoflora" are the closest equivalents, but these are awkward and misleading (arguably, "mycofauna" is more accurate than "mycoflora").
So, it seems we have to use "animals/plants/fungi/protists/bacteria" for regionalization categories etc; there does not seem to be a way to use "fauna/flora" and accomodate fungi in particular. Protists and bacteria are usually not geolocated or geolocateable, but it still holds true for these too; for fungi however the need is rather pressing as we have a considerable amount of content which under the "flora/fauna" scheme cannot be categorized more precisely than "Nature of [country]" ("Nature of..." should generally not hold any files showing individual organisms), and we have a huge amount of unidentified content for which geolocalization should be quite helpful.
This would result in a mass-move of categories (dozens, possibly hundreds though I do not think so). But resolving the "fauna vs animals" problem is necessary, because only then the categories affected are streamlined enough so we can tackle the problem of regionalization scheme (countries vs/and biogeographic regions). Since there is a large interest to build a robust regionalization scheme for biological content and users are already creating the pertinent categories using "animals/plants" and "fauna/flora" indiscriminately, it is imperative the name issue is sorted out before the amount of categories to be moved increases much further. --Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Well-reasoned and sensible. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment The conclusion seems reasonable, but this seems like a strange place to be holding this discussion. The category Animals of Central America already has the recommended name, and this discussion has been dead for over two years, so may as well be closed. I suggest that the proposed naming convention should be added to COM:TOL or some other suitable place. ghouston (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Closing, because the discussion is dead and there's no action to be taken for this category. --ghouston (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be moved to Category:Church bells in Germany by date instead; its subcategories Category:20th century church bells in Germany and Category:1950s church bells in Germany are unused. --:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Closing, since it seems to have been fixed in the meantime. --ghouston (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Empty category. One image didn't show the road, and the other was unrelated to it. Imzadi 1979 → 10:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, useful category with high potential for growth. -FieldMarine (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Closing since it's no longer empty. --ghouston (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
to learn more about castles 12.77.211.28 00:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand what the proposal should mean. However, the category should be renamed to Category:History of Náchod Castle (or Category:History of the castle in Náchod or anything like that). --ŠJů (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Created new category Category:History_of_Náchod_Castle, old one turned into redirect.--RomanM82 (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Closing since it has been resolved. --ghouston (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Needs subcategory cleanup, too many mis-labeled categories Andrei.computer (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC) The category BOOTS IN ART should be categorized under an art category, I believe.
No admin action needed. If you want to clean it up, feel free to do it. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Needs experts' attention. Take a look if you would inside category:Burmese script. There are "Burmese letters" and "Lettres birmanes" which, as I suspect, must be merged together, but then their mother category also contains what looks like individual letters to me. --NVO (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Could use sorting, but so do most categories. No admin action necessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
no contents. previously had one photo, one graphic; since the highway no longer exists, it is unlikely addition media will be made for it. Imzadi 1979 → 08:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Category might have been useful for photos with the M-554 shield on it, but not in case it just contains one photo (or zero, of course :-)). So I'd say: delete it. Fietsbel (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The highway was never signed with M-554 shields. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, Road category with good potential for growth. FieldMarine (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Grow how? The highway was 1) never signed as part of the state highway system from October 1, 1998 – October 10, 2005 and 2) and it was only 0.852 miles (1.371 km) in length. Sorry, I respectfully disagree that there's any room for growth. Imzadi 1979 → 12:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here are two more files: File:M-554.jpg and File:M-554 blade.svg for this cat in addition to the one in there. FieldMarine (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- The first would be the the photo mention in the nomination statement (highways with only a single photo have had their photos place in Category:State highways in Michigan and the second is the graphic representation of the "blade sign" (street sign) used on the roadway, and much like the reassurance markers on other highways, those graphics are placed in a separate category for shields. Imzadi 1979 → 14:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that shields for all highways should be in a cat for shields to group them together, but they should also be in the cat for the individual highway it represents as they are for many of the highway cats in Commons. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Except, that's not how it's been done. None of the other specific Michigan highway categories have markers. (You shouldn't call them shields as they are not shield-shaped) Imzadi 1979 → 04:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that shields for all highways should be in a cat for shields to group them together, but they should also be in the cat for the individual highway it represents as they are for many of the highway cats in Commons. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note for closing admin: The article on M-554 was merged into the M-553 article last month. The lone photo that's in this category is in Category:M-553 (Michigan highway). Imzadi 1979 → 01:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- IMHO, the fact that the road articles in Wikipedia were merged should have no bearing on the deletion of this category in Commons as this is not Wikipedia. A road that no longer exists still has history & having a category with those files in it helps with the sorting & searching of files in commons. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The articles were merged because M-554 was the unsigned designation of the stub end of CR 553 that wasn't included in M-553 when the CR was transferred to state jurisdiction. In other words, after some discussion, it was felt that M-554 didn't need its own article. As a side note, the lone photo in this category shows only one roadway (in the background), and that's not former M-554; it's then-McClellan Avenue, now M-553. Imzadi 1979 → 04:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete only one legitimate file. --Rschen7754 07:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, I count three, not including the two under discussion. I’ve been waiting to move the other two into this category depending on the outcome of this discussion. They are:
Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Only one legitimate file. Not images created just to make sure the category continues to exist. --Rschen7754 20:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The three files above pre-date this CfD. If you referring to the two additional files for the road sign, perhaps they were made because the current one incorrectly simulates the actual sign that was in use for this road as stated in the discussion. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, in general & related to this discussion but also a broader issue, I recommend placing the category for a road on any "blade" or "shield" file that those graphics represent, provided that road has a category. For example, I recommend placing Category:M-554 (Michigan highway) on File:M-554 blade.svg or Category:Rush Street (Chicago) on File:S Rush St Chicago.svg. I see this is already done in some areas & I suggest we make it a standard practice. Since this is a more general topic for standardization, where is a good place to present this item for discussion? Semper Fi FieldMarine (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, well fitting into Category:State highways in Michigan. --JuTa 22:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Ambiguous name: only light can be visually reflected by water ELEKHHT 03:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The other subcategories of Category:Water reflections were the model in my naming this one. Using the plural 'lights' indicates light from an artificial light source, and not ambiguous atmospheric photons. The lights being reflected are either directly from the bare source-lamp bulb/s, or bouncing off a lit surfaces, such as wall washing fixtures create. Sorry, I have no idea what is meant with "only light can be visually reflected by water." The other subcats. have animals, trees, structures, and mountains effectively, and often beautifully, visually reflected by water. Perhaps I'm missing an intended question. In populating this new cat. it was wonderful to have such fine images in the commons to include. Thank you-Look2See1 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is elementary physics, everything you See is light: either source of light or reflection of light. In this category, you categorised reflections of any form of light, which means the category is meaningless, since all reflections which humans can perceive visually are reflections of light. Other reflections would be of electromagnetic waves which you can't see such as sound. Here a reflection of the sunlight on the moon has been categorised as "reflections of lights". Here a mix of reflections of artificial lights and direct sunlight has been included. And here mostly artificial (electric) light reflections have been included in the same category. So are you trying to create a category based on the source of the light (Sun, fire, electric, etc) or on the subject reflected in the water. ELEKHHT 10:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- How should it be called instead? -- Docu at 18:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Depends on the scope, currently the category has no clear scope. The only difference I can see compared to the parent Category:Water reflections is that all content are images by night (or sunset). --ELEKHHT 00:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- This may not need to be an elementary physics or phenomena of light discussion? The intention was the simple, direct, colloquial use of the word 'lights' - as in "the lights of the city" or "the harbour lights" - and water reflecting them. It could be 'Category:Water reflections of artificial lights - or of incandescent lights - or of illuminated structures - or from artificial sources, or of lights at night. or light at night (for moonlight too). My motivation was simple and in good faith. The parent Category:Water reflections is rather full, and I was re-filing images within the more specific and existing subcats, such as 'Water reflections of trees' - 'Water reflections of mountains.' When beautiful images with distinctive "lights reflecting in the water" kept coming along I created this new cat. - but following the "Cat:water reflections of" formatting precedent, and not 'Cat:Lights reflecting in the water' or some other unique-inconsistent title. If there is consensus that it is unsatisfactory please improve it. I'm sorry if it is a confusing one. Thank you.-Look2See1 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, those are good suggestions and I think this could be sorted out by splitting this ambiguous category in clearly defined categories (i.e. ..of illuminated structures, of sunsets, of moonlight, of incandescent lights, etc.) --ELEKHHT 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is a good approach. Categories for water reflections of natural light sources (sunsets, moonlight, aurora, etc.) and water reflections of artificial lights (illuminated structures, lamps, illuminated signs, etc.) may be helpful. The current name, "Water reflections of lights", may be unclear and too informal for our purposes here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would [Cat:Water reflections of natural light sources] with lede delineating 'sunsets, moonlight, aurora, etc.' — and [Cat:Water reflections of artificial lights] with lede delineating 'illuminated structures, lamps, illuminated signs, illuminated landscape elements, etc.' be appropriate and a balance of conciseness and clarity? The splitting is clearly needed. —Look2See1 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support this sensible suggestion. TheGrappler (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Would [Cat:Water reflections of natural light sources] with lede delineating 'sunsets, moonlight, aurora, etc.' — and [Cat:Water reflections of artificial lights] with lede delineating 'illuminated structures, lamps, illuminated signs, illuminated landscape elements, etc.' be appropriate and a balance of conciseness and clarity? The splitting is clearly needed. —Look2See1 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is a good approach. Categories for water reflections of natural light sources (sunsets, moonlight, aurora, etc.) and water reflections of artificial lights (illuminated structures, lamps, illuminated signs, etc.) may be helpful. The current name, "Water reflections of lights", may be unclear and too informal for our purposes here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, those are good suggestions and I think this could be sorted out by splitting this ambiguous category in clearly defined categories (i.e. ..of illuminated structures, of sunsets, of moonlight, of incandescent lights, etc.) --ELEKHHT 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support, with small option: The splitting out with proposed [Category:Water reflections of artificial lights] has seemed a wee bit off. To mirror proposed [Category:Water reflections of natural light sources], repeating "light sources" for [Category:Water reflections of artificial light sources] could simplify the pair and this one's definition. Artificial includes images of light sources that are not visible lamps-light fixtures, such as: Japanese paper lantern festivals where the diffused candlelight source is reflected; and linear-tubular LED architectural lighting; that are not 'light bulb' lights. That's all—Look2See1 (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, if someone likes to split it up, feel free to do so. --JuTa 01:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)--
Oxymoron ELEKHHT 15:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why? What sources do you have to prove that secular architecture does not exist in Egypt? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The conflict is not between "Egypt" and "secular", but "islamic" and "secular". --ELEKHHT 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Currently Category:Secular architecture in Egypt doesn't exist. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, renaming would solve the linguistic self-contradiction, but the question still remains if is of any use categorising architecture in a country based on the religious-secular dichotomy, considering that the same architectural elements are often used in both types of buildings, and that the subcategories (mosque, minaret vs. citadel, palace) are anyway self-explanatory regarding the religious/secular use of the buildings. --ELEKHHT 03:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Currently Category:Secular architecture in Egypt doesn't exist. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The conflict is not between "Egypt" and "secular", but "islamic" and "secular". --ELEKHHT 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/02/Category:Islamic secular architecture --JuTa 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Oxymoron ELEKHHT 15:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also subcategories:
- Category:Islamic secular architecture in Algeria
- Category:Islamic secular architecture in Egypt
- Category:Islamic secular architecture in Morocco
- Category:Islamic secular architecture in Spain
- Category:Islamic secular architecture in Tunisia
--ELEKHHT 15:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, I see no reason to detele anything --JuTa 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Globally replace "mushrooms" with "fungi" in this category and its subcategories?
Rationale: Lost in translation. If you check out the categories already present, you will note almost all are from countries where English is not a primary language, and the first to be created was "Mushrooms of Belgium". In English, there are all sorts of colloquial names for fungi (e.g. "toadstools"). "Mushrooms" is the only one widely familiar to non-Anglophones, so it's obvious why the present name was chosen. But strictly speaking, "mushrooms" refers only to edible fungi of the "hat-and-stalk" type.
These categories are really about fungi in general, so it may be presumed that an original slight translation error caught on (many non-English languages have only a single word for fungi). Better to use "fungi", this is the unequivocal top-level term.
(On Commons, Category:Mushrooms is a subcategory of Category:Fungi by shape, so eventually a "Mushrooms by country" category may make sense. At present however, it is really better to use "Fungi by country" until the available content has been sorted into it.) --Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Keep "Category:Mushrooms by country" (I already put it subordinate to "Fungi by country")
- 2. When both "Fungi of ..." and "Mushrooms of ..." exist, keep both but verify content (mv shelf fungi, puffballs, truffles and other stuff out of "Mushrooms"). Rationale: most "Fungi" categories were not properly incorporated in category tree while "Mushrooms" were, so people used "Mushrooms" for all large fungi; I have incorporated the "Fungi" categories now but not yet sorted content, so there are still many non-mushroom fungus images in "Mushrooms" categories.
- 3. Where only "Mushrooms of ..." exists, mv this category to "Fungi of ..."; sort content from there whenever needed (e.g. for Belgium, which is overcrowded). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- commment I might buy "mushrooms of China" or "mushrooms of Brazil", but "of Belgium" or "of Serbia" - get real! Perhaps it makes sense for national food classification, like "Mushrooms in Serbian cuisine", but not as a general intersection of "taxon A * territory B". How many countries have the honour of growing toadstools? NVO (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is not about "mushrooms" vs "toadstools", but about "mushrooms" vs "puffballs", "shelf fungi" etc. "Mushrooms" (and "toadstools") are just ONE growth form of fungi, and not a taxon!. So what we get by using "mushrooms" categories before we have "fungi" categories is a hodge-podge of badly categorized images. Besides, "How many countries have the honour of growing toadstools?" makes no sense at all, except if we use the "mushroom" categories in the "Food" category tree. "How many people take photos of toadstools and upload them on Commons?" - "A whole damn lot!" Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- comment, good point by NVO, perhaps Category:Mushrooms by continent? -FieldMarine (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved the complete tree into Category:Fungi by country an created {{Category redirect}}s. --JuTa 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)