Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/05
Category or what is? 191.125.22.84 22:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
created today in error Victuallers (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I made a mistake in the name, so please delete it. 織原美津夫 (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Wondering why we have a this category Category:Kolomoki Mounds State Park and Category:Kolomoki Mounds Historic Park. Aren't they the same place? Mjrmtg (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mjrmtg: Looks like they are the same place. The State of Georgia site calls it "Kolomoki Mounds State Park": Kolomoki Mounds State Park The NRHP number just states "Kolomki Mounds". Looks like "Kolomoki Mounds" was turned into "Kolomoki Mounds State Park" to make it a tourist attraction. Krok6kola (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also Explore Southern History.com calls it "Kolomoki Mounds State Park". Krok6kola (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Krok6kola: You created Category:Kolomoki Mounds State Park - which category should be redirected to the other between the State Park and the Historic Park? --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mjrmtg: Kolomoki Mounds State Park is the right category. I think the State of Georgia knows the name of its own park. Krok6kola (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Created redirect. Discussion can be closed. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Redirected per above. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This category should be deleted, there was no such protest in Cologne this day. Instead, the only photo previously sorted into this category show the protest on march 3rd and was uploaded with incorrect data. AlanyaSeeburg (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Quién es esta galla? 191.125.181.199 19:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is Diana Simonelli, as the category says. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Su novia?
- Deleted Empty category Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
nackteteen 2A02:8108:5440:3854:151D:7B9:5ABA:C40D 07:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Can be deleted, it is empty and obsolete. This category was created in relation to a template which is deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:TOO-Malaysia Ellywa (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
because I'm unable to provide my wife with sex due to medication 2600:1700:5F48:380:2C88:CE46:530E:84B2 13:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep Nonsense rationale. Also COM:NOTCENSORED --A1Cafel (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
no road with this number Pelican860 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Temple Way, Bristol was moved into Category:A4044 road (England). Pelican860 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- A4404 was a typo. Let's have it removed. --Schlosser67 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Only one photo, unclear what this even represents Dronebogus (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
What is this category about? Why "other", why "should"? Why does this category has no parent categories and what should the parent categories be? JopkeB (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- This category and several related ones are set by {{convert to STL}}, which was cloned from {{convert to SVG}} by @Otourly and C933103: and myself. This was a good way to get started but is a little clumsy since there are aspects that are more concerned with the situation with SVG / vector graphics that nonetheless got held over to STL / 3D models; namely, there are many kinds of files one might want in SVG form, so the creators of the original template saw fit to divide them into categories (flag images that should use SVG, diagram images, etc.)...the miscellaneous category was 'other', as you might expect. Here it is the only category for STLs this newer template sorts currently. As for 'should', maybe read it as 'could', in the same way that the presence of an SVG doesn't always obsolete a raster equivalent but is nice to also have around. I'm not sure about the question of parent categories, perhaps you have an idea? Arlo James Barnes 12:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Dear Arlo James Barnes, Thanks for your detailed explanation. If I undestand it well, the three of you are running a project for converting files into SVG/STL/3D models. Good work! My concern is to avoid orphan categories without parent categories, and to avoid categories of which it is not clear why they exist. Because this is one of several related categories, and the other ones might also lack parent categories, I suggest you make a new category for this project and collect all the related categories in it. The new category name may be the name of the project. Please give the new category a short description. The parent category of this new category may be (a sub-)category of Category:Commons projects. Does this make sense? --JopkeB (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Done, let me know what you think: category:convert to STL (and newly, category:convert to). Arlo James Barnes 15:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- It looks good to me! Thanks for your quick responses. --JopkeB (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved. There is now a parent category with a description. --JopkeB (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
There is only one file in this category, while all the other works of this painter does not have a category of their own. It seems unnecessary to have this category. I propose to make a deletion request for this category. JopkeB (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for both your contributions. Now the uploader has removed the only file from this category AND has indicated that she/he agrees on deleting, this category can be deleted. I'll make a deletion request.
This category is redundant and can be deleted. --JopkeB (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Empty category. Can this category be deleted? JopkeB (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Its the root in a family tree 2A02:AA1:160B:7ED9:5960:9FE3:316D:862A 12:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- So what? This is not Wikipedia. Commons is only for images, videos, audio and other files, not for family trees (unless it is a pdf file or an image, which is this family tree not). Family trees might be included in a category for clarification reasons (only when there are indeed files in that category), but not as an independent part. --JopkeB (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok I think it adds value also in Wikicommons to see relations ;-) If you dont agree and think this is a problem start request deletions I feel having relations and structure make it easier for other to add pictures its like a redlink.... you dont have to ping me - Salgo60 (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- So what? This is not Wikipedia. Commons is only for images, videos, audio and other files, not for family trees (unless it is a pdf file or an image, which is this family tree not). Family trees might be included in a category for clarification reasons (only when there are indeed files in that category), but not as an independent part. --JopkeB (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I broaden this discussion to Category:Daniella Sophia Louisa Winge (one of his two daughters) as well, because that also is an empty category. Do you know of any images that might belong there, in either of the two categories? Otherwise I'll make deletion requests for both categories. The information about these two persons will still be available via Wikidata. --JopkeB (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann--A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
no road with this number Pelican860 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Files were moved into Category:B585 road (England). Pelican860 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
no road with this number Pelican860 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- File was moved into Category:A1120 road (England). Pelican860 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
no road with this number Pelican860 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- File was moved into Category:A2029 road (England). Pelican860 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
no road with this number Pelican860 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- File was moved to Category:A6124 road (Scotland). Pelican860 (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Empty category; file moved into Category:B2096 road (England). There was a B2069 (Smeeth to Bonnington, in Kent) but it is now an unclassifled road. Pelican860 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Files moved to Category:B2220 road (England), which is the number according to https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/293792/Chequers-Lane,-Walton-on-the-Hill-19.04.2022-N2.pdf and Ordnance Survey Open Names - "B2022" appears to be an error in OpenStreetMap. There was a B2022, but it became part of the A264 (https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=B2022). Pelican860 (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
What is this category about? There are three portrait photographs in of different people. The name of the category is not correct anyway (should be in plural). It has no parent categories. Is this a try that should be in a sandbox? Or is this about circumventing Commons rules abour personal photographs? JopkeB (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
No road with this number; file moved to Category:B5476 road (England). Pelican860 (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
No road with this number; file moved to Category:B5476 road (England) Pelican860 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Mistake needing deletion Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Mia to be reserved to DAB page. Same in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Support Category:Mia (Estonian singer) as there is w:Mia (singer) who is Lithuanian. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support making this a dab. Too many things that "Mia" could mean. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
moved to Category:Mia (Estonian singer). (although commons cat tree is Category:Vocalists, i see no reason to not use the more common word singer.)--RZuo (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Empty and deleting pls 191.126.33.204 14:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- The category has 4 files which is probably enough to have a category even without WP articles or a Wikidata item however 3 of them are up for deletion. If the subject isn't notable it may be better to nominate the final file for deletion and if all 4 are deleted this can just be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure that Category:USS Powhatan (ship, 1850) is the exact same ship, which was launched in 1850, and commissioned in 1852 Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Never mind, think I got confused by redirects. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Should we use "Istanbul" or "İstanbul"? A1Cafel (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- We use the name which is most common in English, see Commons:Naming categories. So I think "Istanbul" is the correct name. --JopkeB (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- As such, categories with "İstanbul" should be renamed. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. --JopkeB (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- As such, categories with "İstanbul" should be renamed. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I've moved everything to Istanbul. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Is necesari? 191.126.3.145 01:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I opened a new discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Military people by function which covers this CfD. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
People no debe ser capitalizada 191.126.3.145 01:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Renamed Category:Military people associated with Iran-Iraq War from Iran -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Right now, Category:Sternwheelers is a redirect, with the main category at Category:Sternwheel riverboats. I'd like to reverse that because not all sternwheelers are riverboats. Here in the Salish Sea region, we had a lot of them on salt water. I've already discussed this with User:Stunteltje, who set it up the present way, and he has no objection to the proposed change. Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Or, maybe even better, Category:Sternwheel riverboats could be a subcat (which would probably be 90% of these, but definitely not all). - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
It's been a month with no further comment, so I'm going ahead with this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Category has no reason to exist, being empty Dronebogus (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Category is empty 111.220.98.160 23:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Category containing one eponymous template; unlikely to grow. Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal) should suffice. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Category containing one eponymous template; unlikely to grow. Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal) should suffice. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference with Category:Merchant marine of Germany? Can these two categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good Question. ***Navy was created in 2019, ***Marine came up 2021. Hold on and wait for user:Ambross07 of de:P:SCHIFF. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- There seems to be no difference. Both variants are used in Category:Merchant navies by country. Since Category:German Merchant Navy is part of Category:Merchant marine of Germany, both can be merged into one. --Ambross07 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ｔｏｍ and Ambross07, for your reactions. Because there is no clear winner in Category:Merchant navies by country, I choose Category:Merchant marine of Germany to stay because it is a better name and there are more subcategories and more files in than in Category:German Merchant Navy. I'll merge both categories.
OK + thx --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ｔｏｍ and Ambross07, for your reactions. Because there is no clear winner in Category:Merchant navies by country, I choose Category:Merchant marine of Germany to stay because it is a better name and there are more subcategories and more files in than in Category:German Merchant Navy. I'll merge both categories.
Both categories are about the same subject, so they have been merged. Category:Merchant marine of Germany is to stay. --JopkeB (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
According to the Italian Wikipedia this name should be "Ludovico Carracci". The names in the subcategories vary. Proposal: rename all subcategories with Lodovico Carracci to Ludovico Carracci. JopkeB (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Vincent Steenberg, I'll implement the changes. --JopkeB (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The category name (and it's subcategories) will be changed back to Category:Ludovico Carracci
empty text category with word of undefined language, does it exist? Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I've moved this category to "People wearing durags" and emptied out the original category because English Wikipedia uses the form "durag." The former category can be deleted. Denniscabrams (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep – as a redirect. Do-rags is likely search term. It is written just as it is pronounced. No offense to Wikipedia, but I see "durags" and would pronounce it der-AHGS. Senator2029 14:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as redirect. "Do-rag" is a common spelling, at least in the US. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept as redirect per above. Nothing wrong with having redirects from fairly common alternative spellings. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The category has been emptied by Zakblade2000. Leyo 13:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pinacolyl alcohol is the more common name Zakblade2000 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Closed, left as redirect. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Dixie State University → Utah Tech University and Dixie State Trailblazers → Utah Tech Trailblazers - University changed name publicly ahead of formal/legal name change on July 1, 2022. English Wikipedia move completed after discussion. Propose all Dixie State University related categories in Commons also reflect the name change.
Subcategories:
- Category:Dixie State University athletics
- Category:Dixie State University athletics logos
- Category:Dixie State University logos
GreenwoodKL (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Seeing no dissent after three weeks, these categories will be moved --GreenwoodKL (talk) 17:25, 18 Jun 2022 (UTC)
- Recreated as: Category:Slavonic dancing steps notation
Hoax category created by sock of User:Kriestovo Nysian/User:Sibinia. Topic completely made up; there's no such thing as a specifically Slavonic dance notation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Update: Original category was speedily deleted as empty, but re-created under new title by the same sockpuppet. Still a hoax, still needs to be purged and deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
inside preview category nudygirl video view 173.225.242.151 01:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hä? --Smial (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Closing, nothing to do, as said above, Commons isn't censored. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Category is only used for single user’s porn spam Dronebogus (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
"Kodomo Press" is not a real company. It is a fictional company created by banned User:Midnight68. There is no reason to have a category for a banned editor's made up company. B. disruptus (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Should be "Tucker's lemma" in line with other Category:Lemmas. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Renamed Estopedist1 (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
es sinónimo de Category:Planorbella trivolvis Lmalena (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Redirected per WORMS, GBIF and other databases Estopedist1 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I supposed to make a category named "Plasser & Theurer ballast regulators in Indonesia", but somehow I incorrectly typed "the Indonesia" instead. NFarras (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Empty category. Can this category be deleted? There is only a family tree, but this is not Wikipedia. Commons is only for images, videos, audio and other files, not for family trees (unless it is a pdf file or an image, which is this family tree not). Family trees might be included in a category for clarification reasons (only when there are indeed files in that category), but not as an independent part. JopkeB (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The category has been deleted, so this discussion can be closed. --JopkeB (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
pointless Faisal talk 11:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Film Director" probably doesn't need to be capitalized but the only file is up for deletion if that is deleted this will be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Motorola C168 AnVuong1222004 (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Nokia 105 (2021) AnVuong1222004 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Stupid unnecessary categoria 191.125.22.84 22:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Neutral problematic. Enwiki has also en:Category:Composers by city--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Unmanageable.Same as Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/10/Category:Surnames by country Estopedist1 (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
No so useful as I expected, as the term "East Bengal " is too often used to mean Bangladesh than anything else. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Only two files, of which one does not illustrate topic Dronebogus (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This category seems too granular for a city by date (and especially for a city like Cheynne, Wyoming). If merged up to the state level, I can see one other image in Category:United States photographs taken on 2007-08-07 in Wyoming. There are only three other images in Category:August 2007 in Wyoming at the moment. Propose an upmerge of this image to the United States category for this day and the creation of Category:2007 in Cheyenne, Wyoming (decade may be better). Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: , there is hundreds of images that can be added to these categories. I am currently adding images to these categories. Sahaib (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)I have started to upmerge it. Sahaib (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)- @Sahaib: Are there hundreds of images already uploaded or hundreds you plan on uploading? I couldn't find any others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: , I was planning on adding images to the Cheyenne categories but will now be adding images to Wyoming categories. Sahaib (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment @Sahaib: If you agree with the discussion, you should remark on that here rather than moving the page and leaving this here. This should be closed then which will reduce the outstanding backlog of discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Cheyenne, Wyoming photographs taken on 2007-08-07 | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
what's the inclusion criteria for this cat tree? i noticed for example File:Márcio Garcia Machado, Nov.2021 (01).jpg was put under this. basically every image of people looking into the camera would fall under this? RZuo (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment Subcats seem well populated and used. Do you have any specific suggestions? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- This listing doesn't seem to be generating any discussion. Unless there are suggestions for making some sort of changes, I suggest this be closed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- my question was "what's the inclusion criteria for this cat tree?" RZuo (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say things that potential reusers might find useful - for example if they are looking for photos of a dog looking at viewer, an 18th-century portrait of a woman looking at the viewer, etc., there are categories to help them find such. What reusers might find useful is a general criteria for most categories. If one thinks an image is a good example of something, one can add it to a relevant category. Does that answer your question? If not, could you please try explaining in more detail what you find problematic or mysterious? Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- my question was "what's the inclusion criteria for this cat tree?" RZuo (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- This listing doesn't seem to be generating any discussion. Unless there are suggestions for making some sort of changes, I suggest this be closed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Closed, no active discussion, no proposals, so no action taken. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This seems too granular. There are no images in Category:Bangladesh photographs taken on 2022-04-02 which is the typical country organization level. Instead, suggest upmerging to the Bangladesh category and create a Category:2022 at Bangladesh Air Force Museum like other museums within Category:Museums in India by year of photographing such as Category:Birla Industrial & Technological Museum by year. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Afifa Afrin and JopkeB: who previously discussed this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ricky81682, Where can I find this discussion? --JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm referring to your edits to the page as a "discussion". The speedy deletion nomination and removal. Just pinged you two to get everyone who has thought about this category into an actual discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ricky81682, Where can I find this discussion? --JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think this discussion should (also) be held with MdsShakil, who is the uploader of the files, with initially Category:Bangladesh Air Force Museum 20220402, which did not exist. I saw this category on Special:WantedCategories and I moved the files to the newly made Category:Bangladesh Air Force Museum photographs taken on 2022-04-02, which is a better category name. Personally I think that it is better to have categories which are as specific as possible, especially for large groups of files, like this one. And in addition, if the changes you propose are being implemented, then the other categories (Category:Bangladesh photographs taken on 2022-04-02 and perhaps Category:Museums photographed in 2022 and Category:Educational institutions photographed in 2022) get 53 files extra instead of the one category that is there now (now it is clear these files belong together), which I do not find desirable. Your idea to have this category in Category:Museums in India photographed in 2022 would be a good idea. --JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB Thanks for the ping. 1st of all i add Category:Bangladesh Air Force Museum 20220402 for file organising and further editing purpose. (Get an list easily by using category) I think this type category need to
- @MdsShakil: Do you agree with the current category or agree with it by year? I just don't by day is needed and thus suggest it by year with all Bangladesh images broadly organized by the date. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682 I think per year is the best idea. We don't have enough pictures of this place every day or even every month. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @MdsShakil: Do you agree with the current category or agree with it by year? I just don't by day is needed and thus suggest it by year with all Bangladesh images broadly organized by the date. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: It would be Category:Museums in Bangladesh photographed in 2022. India I just used as a reference category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB Thanks for the ping. 1st of all i add Category:Bangladesh Air Force Museum 20220402 for file organising and further editing purpose. (Get an list easily by using category) I think this type category need to
- I think Category:2022 at Bangladesh Air Force Museum this type of cat would be suitable to track the year-wise change of the museum. Daywise cat is too narrow scope. Thank you. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- The opinions are three to one, so I'll accept your decision. I hope you'll solve the possible overloading of the other categories involved.
- @MdsShakil: A suggestion for the next time you upload photos: Please make real categories right away, with at least one parent category and perhaps a description; categories in red are not real categories. Especially when there are a lot of files with the same, red category name, the red category will be made real by editors like me. This will reduce confusion and misunderstandings. After all, you have far more knowledge about categories you want to use than me or other random editors have, and so you can make better category names for your subjects.
- @Ricky81682: You are absolutely right about Category:Museums in Bangladesh photographed in 2022, India is not correct here.
Update
[edit]- User:Afifa Afrin made Category:2022 at the Bangladesh Air Force Museum and took care of proper parent categories, so we do not have to worry about that anymore.
- I leave it as it is now. Whoever wants to move the photographs of Category:Bangladesh Air Force Museum photographs taken on 2022-04-02 to its parent and make a redirect of this subcategory: go ahead. I close this discussion.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JopkeB (talk • contribs) 21 feb 2023 10:22 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | more or less, enough to close this discussion | |||
| Actions | None, the proposed new category was already made with a slightly different name | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Template merged with {{No license since}} and the paramenter |del= was abolished. This category is no longer useful (Also no need to classified whether nld images have VRT permission/DR pending or not) A1Cafel (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove "Sir" title like other categories. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Renamed. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Category:Auditorium Theatre should be a disambiguation page, and the contents moved to Category:Auditorium Theatre (Chicago), because other cities have a theatre of that name... Geo Swan (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: What else gets listed at the disambiguation page? --` Themightyquill (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Renamed and disambiguated per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
makes no sense as a category, Paintings by Théodore Chassériau is just fine. Mateus2019 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- If someone wants to create an actual gallery at Gallery of works by Théodore Chassériau that would be acceptable, but there's no reason to call a category a gallery. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
It looks that Taiwanese people inventing new words for "train" If so, then why are there two pictures of the bus. So...What the hell does this mean?--Kai3952 (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's been two weeks. If the user who created the category can prove that the name "Train-like Service" is real and has explaining what is the category used for, maybe we can get a clear idea of how to use it, but he didn't. I have emptied and nominated for speedy deletion.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many news reports in Taiwan have confirmed that it is a term created by the Ministry of Transportation of the Republic of China, and it is true that a train is a bus. 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 13:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I will temporarily restore.（ Google translate above reply） 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 13:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- see[1][2][3][4][5] 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 13:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @鐵路1: Although the language used by most of the people here is English, they would happy to see your response. However, you did not explain what "Train-like Service" means, and no-one knows why buses are called "train". Anyway, a bus is not a train. We should avoid using words in our title that are misleading. Since you didn't provide a more specific explanation and an edit war started, I've reported you to COM:AN/U. Also, if this category gets kept, I'd recommend renaming it specifically to "Rail substitute bus transport in Taiwan".--Kai3952 (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Kai3952: My idea is a sub-category under "Rail substitute bus transport in Taiwan", because this is a newly created term for the categorization of nouns. (Google translate) 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 11:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Supplement: I have created a description in the wiki dictionary and added a link template. Also, I had no intention of starting an editorial war, just that the page was still being organized at that time. 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 11:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- All information you provided is in Chinese instead of English, I suspect that the word "Train-like Service" was invented by you. If you insist on a name like this, please take a look at this news report and it saying:
However, in Taiwan, you so-called "Train-like Service" is a bus, and not a rapid transport system. Therefore, I still recommend renaming it specifically to "Rail substitute bus transport in Taiwan".--Kai3952 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)It has invested a huge amount of money – almost £500million – on a new, state-of-the art rapid transport system based on bus lanes which provide a ‘train-like’ service and guaranteed journey times.
- not a noun I createdwikidata:Special:Diff/1626514346/1626514349,is should be direct translation in Chinese,Train-like Service Chinese sources are also reliable sources, not necessarily foreign language 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 12:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Actually I googled and didn't find any information about Train-like Service in Taiwan. If Taiwanese government always insisted to use a Chinese name and not English name, I still recommend renaming the category to "Rail substitute bus transport in Taiwan".--Kai3952 (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- not a noun I createdwikidata:Special:Diff/1626514346/1626514349,is should be direct translation in Chinese,Train-like Service Chinese sources are also reliable sources, not necessarily foreign language 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 12:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- @鐵路1: As for the edit war, see these diffs for evidence: special:diff/657501082, special:diff/657655487, special:diff/657500391, special:diff/657655489. You accept neither a deletion nor a rename, as if to imply that the category "Train-like Service" you created is yours and yours only, so I really don't understand how this helps.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rail substitute bus transport in Taiwan is also available in Taiwan, but no one uploads photos. This is indeed a term created by the Ministry of Communications of the Republic of China. There are many news examples.-- 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 12:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I want to distinguish between the new term and the actual distinction, Train-like Service is a new name under the construction of Rail substitute bus transport. 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 12:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Supplement: I am want to trying to distinguish between nouns and practical differences, not to force want the classification to remain . 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your thoughts are good, but your method of conveying them gives the impression that you owns the category you created. You can look at COM:OWN and it saying:
Since the information you provided is in Chinese and you didn't explain what "Train-like Service" means, we don't know anything about them (not to mention we can get a clear idea of how to use that category). I have to tell you, Commons is not Chinese Wikipedia.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Since no one "owns" any part of any article, if you create or edit a page, you should not sign it, for aside from distracting readers, such a practice would likely exacerbate 'edit wars' or possibly inhibit others from editing 'your' work.
- I know but my English is completely no if your English is ok Please also help translate into English and add，Me Reply both is used Google Translate。 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 15:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your thoughts are good, but your method of conveying them gives the impression that you owns the category you created. You can look at COM:OWN and it saying:
- Supplement: I am want to trying to distinguish between nouns and practical differences, not to force want the classification to remain . 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- All information you provided is in Chinese instead of English, I suspect that the word "Train-like Service" was invented by you. If you insist on a name like this, please take a look at this news report and it saying:
- @鐵路1: Although the language used by most of the people here is English, they would happy to see your response. However, you did not explain what "Train-like Service" means, and no-one knows why buses are called "train". Anyway, a bus is not a train. We should avoid using words in our title that are misleading. Since you didn't provide a more specific explanation and an edit war started, I've reported you to COM:AN/U. Also, if this category gets kept, I'd recommend renaming it specifically to "Rail substitute bus transport in Taiwan".--Kai3952 (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many news reports in Taiwan have confirmed that it is a term created by the Ministry of Transportation of the Republic of China, and it is true that a train is a bus. 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 13:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are usually short-distance Rail substitute bus transport in a few sections of Taiwan, and the quasi-train is respond for Taiwan Railway Labor Union collective legal leave New terms announced by the Minister of Communications of the Republic of China intercity transportation.-- 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 13:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted per discussion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
We should rationalise this category and its children (examples: Category:Artefacts from Titanic (ship, 1911); Category:Monuments and memorials to the Titanic (ship, 1912); Category:Titanic (ship, 1912) museums), so that they use the same - and the correct - year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- That would definitely be ideal. Any idea why 1912 is being used? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps because it sank on 15 April 1912? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The main category should be renamed back to 1912. Commons uses the year of completion (per the guidelines in Category:Ships), not launch the way that some Wikipedias do, and the ship was completed in April 1912. It had been named with 2012, but looks like it was erroneously renamed a couple years ago, but the subcats left alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- If that is renamed, then "1911" subcategories should all be renamed, per my original post. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- If that is renamed, then "1911" subcategories should all be renamed, per my original post. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I will move it.
Closed because it gets renamed to Category:Titanic (ship, 1912). SeichanGant (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
This category seems to be the same as Category:manufacturing. Except the term "industry" is much more ambiguous. So I'd like to move images that are in this category into the other category and redirect it or something. Otherwise, it would be cool if there was at least a clear distinction between the two. From my perspective they seem to be the same though. The only difference being that "industry" is to ambiguous of a word to be useful. Adamant1 (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are different meanings of the word "industry". See the DAB page en:Industry. At the moment, Category:Industries is linked to industry (Q268592), while Category:Industry is linked with industrial sector (Q8148). Both are different from Category:Manufacturing which is matched with manufacturing (Q187939). In en-Wikipedia there was a discussion regarding the split of the article industry at en:Talk:Industry (economics)/Archive 1#Revive Split Proposal (Jul 2020). I think commons should do something similar. That is:
- Make Category:Industry a DAB category.
- Match Category:Industries in meaning with en:Industry (economics) (industry (Q268592)). Best rename to Category:Industry (economics).
- Create a new Category:Industry (manufacturing) matched in meaning with industrial sector (Q8148)). This is IMHO very similar in meaning to en:Secondary sector of the economy.
- Distribute the current content of Category:Industry between Category:Industry (manufacturing) and Category:Industry (economics) and maybe Category:Manufacturing.
- --S.K. (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- That seems like a reasonable suggestion. I'll wait for more feedback before doing it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not that much discussion happening. :-( Maybe time to be bold and just make the change? Or is there a way to get more persons involved in the discussion? S.K. (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 and S.K.: I like some of that structure, but I think it needs some refining:
- Category:Production - economic activity producing goods and services
- Category:Industry - large-scale organized production of goods and services
- Category:Industries - organizations or groups producing a related set of goods and services - (this name is preferred as an industry is a countable thing and per COM:CAT should be a simple plural noun, as opposed to Category:Industry (manufacturing) which would indicate it is a concept not a thing, also not all industries are concerned with manufacturing, e.g. fishing or forestry)
- Category:Industrial sectors - portion of an economy concerning large-scale organized production - (every modern economy has an industrial sector, so again, this is a countable thing so per COM:CAT, plural noun is the correct naming)
- Category:Manufacturing - industrial production of manufactured goods
- Category:Industry - large-scale organized production of goods and services
- Category:Production - economic activity producing goods and services
- In this structure, Category:Industry (economics) would be superfluous and can be disposed of (or simply a redirect to Category:Industry). Josh (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Josh: Thanks for your feedback. I like certain aspects of your structure but I see one central point where I would structure it differently. en:industry (economics) is about more than Production. It includes industries like en:Finance industry or en:Hospitality industry. I would therefore follow the global standard of en:International Standard Industrial Classification and put Category:Industry (economics) (maybe with a different name) at the top. The category Category:Production would then represent more or less the en:Secondary sector as a subcategory. S.K. (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @S.K.: I have reviewed the ISIC and Category:Production (what it refers to as 'productive activities') incorporates production of both goods and services (as does our current category). Since both Finance industry and Category:Hospitality industry are primarily service industries (I suppose they may produce some goods but it is negligible for this analysis) they would be included by ISIC as 'productive activities' and therefore I am not sure why they would not fit under Category:Production. Can you elaborate? Josh (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Josh: ISIC uses “economic activity” as the central term (see the quote at en: industry (economics)). So while one can see services as being produced, but how about research and development? There the analogy gets weak. Or households that have employees (see https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/SeriesM/seriesm_4rev4e.pdf section 150-151)? That’s not what I would typically put under “production”. And ISIC puts under "industry” also the small “mom and pop” shop or the small craftsman with two employees if they are doing the same economic activity as e.g. Walmart or General Motors. S.K. (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @S.K.: Well I actually reviewed the document itself, not relying on the quotes picked for Wikipedia. Here is where they speak about the broadest/highest level of classification:
The categories at the highest level are called sections, which are alphabetically coded categories intended to facilitate economic analysis. The sections subdivide the entire spectrum of productive activities into broad groupings, such as “Agriculture, forestry and fishing” (section A), “Manufacturing” (section C) and “Information and communication” (section J).
— in: International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities Revision 4 - Chapter I, paragraph 5 (emphasis added)
- @Josh: ISIC uses “economic activity” as the central term (see the quote at en: industry (economics)). So while one can see services as being produced, but how about research and development? There the analogy gets weak. Or households that have employees (see https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/SeriesM/seriesm_4rev4e.pdf section 150-151)? That’s not what I would typically put under “production”. And ISIC puts under "industry” also the small “mom and pop” shop or the small craftsman with two employees if they are doing the same economic activity as e.g. Walmart or General Motors. S.K. (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @S.K.: I have reviewed the ISIC and Category:Production (what it refers to as 'productive activities') incorporates production of both goods and services (as does our current category). Since both Finance industry and Category:Hospitality industry are primarily service industries (I suppose they may produce some goods but it is negligible for this analysis) they would be included by ISIC as 'productive activities' and therefore I am not sure why they would not fit under Category:Production. Can you elaborate? Josh (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Josh: Thanks for your feedback. I like certain aspects of your structure but I see one central point where I would structure it differently. en:industry (economics) is about more than Production. It includes industries like en:Finance industry or en:Hospitality industry. I would therefore follow the global standard of en:International Standard Industrial Classification and put Category:Industry (economics) (maybe with a different name) at the top. The category Category:Production would then represent more or less the en:Secondary sector as a subcategory. S.K. (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- That seems like a reasonable suggestion. I'll wait for more feedback before doing it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I provide the quote above not to try and hammer home 'productive activities' as the right term, but more to illustrate that even within a well-written and mature industry standards document such as this it is dangerous to just pluck a statement from it and draw broad conclusions. I do not have a problem with creating a category for Category:Economic activities as a parent for Category:Production if we have such economic activities that are not people producing goods and services.
- This gets to problem of the appeal to authority to try and apply a standard such as this to Commons categories. This standard was not devised with our category structure or even the purpose of Commons in mind, and thus they do not account for the purpose or unique challenges we face. They work within the context of economic classification, but Commons categories have a much broader context they have to work in. The ISIC document is a very illuminating and useful reference point, but as simple as it sounds to simply apply it 1-to-1 to our category structure, such an effort is doomed to failure. This is really why we do not even take our sister projects such as Wikidata or the Wikipedias as a controlling influence over our category structure, much less third-parties.
- I do get that you might not typically put household economic activity (domestic services) under 'production' but yet, it does fit. "Production" is not limited in scope, so small-scale production (even down to a single person) fits here. As for ISIC considers part of "industry", I'm not sure what section you are referring to, but yes, if I make cars in my garage, I am part of the auto industry just like GM. The industry is large-scale, though my portion of it is small. That fits fine with the structure above though, so not sure what the issue is with that. Josh (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Josh: I did look at large parts of ISIC as well. And the quote about “economic activity” is from the definition section where the basic concepts are defined. And even in the 4th edition of such a well established standard some terminological inconsistencies are to be expected. So in case of doubt I’d use the definition section as reference.
- I don’t know if you had time to read the discussion at en:Talk:Industry (economics)/Archive 1#Revive Split Proposal (Jul_2020). My point/involvement there is, that the different English meanings of “industry” have different translations in other languages. See the Wikipedia links at industry (Q268592) vs. industrial sector (Q8148). For internationalization I therefore think a top-level category matching industry (Q268592) would be better. For example in German translating industry (Q268592) to Industrieis a “false friend”, same in French and probably multiple other languages.
- And sure, Commons has its own requirements, but that shouldn’t prevent us from using established external sources as guidance where possible. In this particular case, I have the impression we could benefit from it. This obviously doesn’t mean we shouldn’t adapt where necessary/beneficial. --S.K. (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @S.K.: It sounds good to say "I’d use the definition section as reference" to appeal to authority regarding the term "economic activity", skipping over the fact that it does not define the term "economic activity" there (or anywhere). I'm happy to glean what gain we can out of this document, but I'm not sure what you are driving at with this "economic activity" vs. "productive activities" thing. What they definitely don't call it is "industry (economics)".
- I'm also not sure what your point is with industry (Q268592) in German, as it is not translated to Industrie as you indicate, but instead it is Wirtschaftszweig, so what's the problem? If that's wrong, that's a Wikidata problem, not something we can solve here.
- All of this is taking us away from the goal of fixing the currently very bad organization of Category:Production and manufacturing, Category:Industry, Category:Production, etc. So forgive me, but let me address your original statement and my concerns with it and maybe we can get back to the substance:
- "...put Category:Industry (economics) (maybe with a different name) at the top."
- Problem 1) This request isn't clear on what purpose this would serve that the existing Category:Production would not.
- Problem 2) The term industry, in economics, refers to large-scale organized production, a subset of production precluding smaller-scale or decentralized production not occurring as part of a larger economy or industry.
- Problem 3) Disambiguation is not required in this case (minor point), but "economics" does not sufficiently distinguish it from the existing Category:Industry which also is within the scope of economics.
- "The category Category:Production would then represent more or less the en:Secondary sector as a subcategory."
- Problem 4) That isn't what production is: production includes both goods and services and hence all three sectors of the (raw materials, manufactured goods, and services).
- Problem 5) Our categorization isn't based on the three-sector model.
- Problem 6) We already have a category that covers manufacturing at Category:Manufacturing, which my proposal puts under Category:Industry.
- Problem 7) "Production" cannot be a subset of "Industry" because all industry is production, but not all production is industry.
- "...put Category:Industry (economics) (maybe with a different name) at the top."
- So what might work, or make it more clear, I'm not sure, is to have a category Category:Economic activities above Category:Production, as production of goods and services are economic activities, but so are trade and consumption which are most definitely not production. Let me know your thoughts. Josh (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Josh: Regarding “production activities” vs. “economic activities” see section 4 and 29:
- 4. The scope of ISIC in general covers productive activities, i.e., economic activities within the production boundary of the System of National Accounts (SNA). A few exceptions have been made to allow for the classification of activities beyond the production boundary but which are of importance for various other types of statistics.
- 29. The scope of the present version of ISIC is defined by the production boundary of the System of National Accounts, with one exception—activities in ISIC class 9820 (Undifferentiated services-producing activities of private households for own use). This type of activity, in combination with class 9810 (Undifferentiated goods-producing activities of private households for own use), is used for measuring subsistence activities of households that can not otherwise be captured in the classification. These categories, however, cover only a subset of all households, because households with clearly identifiable economic activities (whether market or for own final use) are classified in other parts of ISIC. These two categories have been created for special purposes, such as labour-force surveys, to cover combinations of household activities that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to assign to a single ISIC category. These two categories are generally not used in business surveys.
- Regarding What they definitely don't call it is "industry (economics)".. But ISIC defines “industry” as follows:
- The set of statistical units that are classified into the same ISIC category is then often referred to as an industry, such as “the furniture industry”, which would refer to all units classified in ISIC division 31 (Manufacture of furniture), or the “construction industry”, which would refer to all units classified in ISIC section F (Construction).
- The disambiguating suffix “(economics)” is obviously a Wikipedia invention.
- Regarding “Wirtschaftszweig”: This is the German translation of “industry” in the sense of “industry” as defined above by ISIC. The translation of “industry” in the sense of “large-scale organized production of goods and services” is “Industrie”. That’s more specific than the first meaning. So there’s nothing wrong with Wikidata, we only should match the Commons category in the ISIC sense of “industry” with the correct corresponding Wikidata object, that is with d:Q268592.
- I try to respond now to your concrete comments:
- Industry (economics)
- Problem 1) This request isn't clear on what purpose this would serve that the existing Category:Production would not. ==> “Production” describes an activity, while “industry” in the ISIC sense describes a collection of “statistical units”, or simply put “companies”/“enterprises”.
- Problem 2) The term industry, in economics, refers to large-scale organized production, a subset of production precluding smaller-scale or decentralized production not occurring as part of a larger economy or industry. ==> See above. “Industry” in the ISIC sense is more generic, IMHO.
- Problem 3) Disambiguation is not required in this case (minor point), but "economics" does not sufficiently distinguish it from the existing Category:Industry which also is within the scope of economics. ==> The two meanings of “industry” somehow need to be distinguished. By disambiguation or by simply using different words (like in German).
- Industry (economics)
- I guess it’s best to settle the top level before we delve into deeper levels of the structure. (And I’ve written enough for the moment anyway ;-).) S.K. (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Josh: Regarding “production activities” vs. “economic activities” see section 4 and 29:
- @S.K.: Sure, that sounds like a constructive plan. Let me first address your comments:
- Problems 1 & 2 I agree with you that "production" describes an activity, while "industry" (in the ISIC sense at least) describes entities, and that's the problem. There is more to the activity of production than just the entities that conduct it (though of course they are an important part). Hence the category Category:Industries as the top-level for actual industrial entities being a sub-cat of Category:Industry which is the general activity of organized production which should be a sub-cat of Category:Production which is the overall activity of all production of goods and services.
- Problem 3 There are a lot more than two meanings for the word "industry" in English usage, but we only worry about what Commons categories there are. As it stands, there are a number of categories for towns and other places named "Industry", a music group named "Industry", and at least one museum, so I will concede this one. While strictly not necessary if consensus is that one usage is clearly more common, I generally prefer clarity, so Category:Industry (economics) it is.
- Additional note: I'm no German expert so I'll trust you that Wirtschaftszweig (Q268592) is not correct for "large-scale organized production of goods and services". But then again, I've not claimed it was and it is not even the one currently attached to Category:Industry, nor am I saying it should be. So saying it isn't correct for a category it is not attached to and no one is proposing it to be attached to seems a bit of a moot point, doesn't it? I mean, sure, I totally agree that Wirtschaftszweig (Q268592) should not be linked with Category:Industry (it is not now and should not in the future) and instead it should be Industrie (Q8148) (which it is now and should remain). Can we close that matter now? Josh (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Josh: Sorry, was absorbed with other activities outside the Wiki universe.
- Regarding Problems 1 & 2: I think this is a part where we can and should treat "industry" more generic than the "strict" definition of ISIC. For Commons obviously not only the legal ("enterprises", see Category:Companies by industry) or physical ("factories"/" ") entities are relevant, but a multitude of other aspects like Category:Businesspeople by industry, Category:Logos associated with industries or Category:Business organizations by industry.
- Regarding Problem 3: Thanks. I prefer clarity as well. :-)
- Regarding what meaning/Wikidata object to connect with Category:Industry (economics): The (extended) ISIC definition that we kind of settled on, matches with d:Q268592. In German this is WirtschaftszweigorBranche. In Spanish (I saw you speak Spanish) this should be or maybe a bit more precise (only looking at definitions, I don't speak Spanish).
- Would this work out for you? S.K. (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @S.K.: No worries, I likewise have been rather busy with the holidays and all, and I will likewise have a lot coming up, so do not be alarmed if I go a few days without a response.
- I think it would be helpful to separate the conversation over what to name a given category from the one regarding the structure of our content into an organized ontology. I certainly find the organization far more impactful and if done well, the naming kind of becomes easy at that point. I think worrying about what Wikidata item is or should be connected to what category is a bit of a cart before the horse. We should develop our structure appropriately and only then worry about how to properly stitch it to Wikidata (including doing some new items or changes on that side if required).
- I think we agree on the idea of there being a parent category which is essentially the big concept of the economic activity of humans making goods and services. Intersecting that top-level concept with other topics such as people, organization, etc. creates a set of sub-categories. This is generally how Commons categories should work. Let me do a practical walk-through of what I mean:
- We have Category:Production (call it industry or whatever else works for you) which is the concept of humans making goods and services as part of the economy.
- Now, intersect that with Category:Organization (or some child of that main topic) and you get Category:Industry (or industrial production or whatever) as currently defined -- the large-scale organized production of goods and services.
- Likewise, intersect Category:Production with Category:Household and you get Category:Domestic work which is a form of production that doesn't really fit under Category:Industry
- Then, when we intersect Category:Industry with Category:Secondary sector of the economy we get Category:Manufacturing which is the actual industrial production of manufactured goods.
- Likewise, intersect Category:Industry with Category:Primary sector of the economy to get Category:Agriculture and Category:Mining, etc. and with Category:Tertiary sector of the economy to get Category:Retail industry and such. All of these live under Category:Industry (economy)
- On a different not, intersect Category:Industry with Category:Business to get Category:Industries which is the actual enterprises (collectively and individually) that do industry.
- The list keeps going of how these merge together to form ever more specific categories for things. I know you probably aren't a fan of some of the names I cited, but that is not really my focus with this--the names can be discussed and refined later once we know what our structure looks like. For example I write Category:Industry even if it probably will become Category:Industry (economy) (partly because it is the current name, partly because I am lazy). Josh (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Josh: Sorry, was absorbed with other activities outside the Wiki universe.
@Adamant1, S.K., and Joshbaumgartner: Reviving this discussion. My thoughts, questions and proposals, from top to bottom:
- Make Category:Industry a DAB category.
- Match Category:Industries in meaning with en:Industry (economics) (industry (Q268592)).
- Remarks of Josh about Category:Industries (organizations or groups producing a related set of goods and services):
- Rename Category:Industries to Category:Industry (economics)?
- Remarks of Josh about Category:Industries (organizations or groups producing a related set of goods and services):
- Create a new Category:Industry (manufacturing) matched in meaning with industrial sector (Q8148)).
- This is very similar in meaning to en:Secondary sector of the economy. No, the Secondary sector of the economy is much broader, including for instance Construction and Crafts, which are not part of Industry (the large-scale organized production of goods).
- Distribute the current content of Category:Industry between Category:Industry (manufacturing) and Category:Industry (economics) and maybe Category:Manufacturing. I guess so.
- (My addition:) Judge whether subcategories of Category:Manufacturing should be moved to the new categories.
- We do not take our sister projects such as Wikidata or the Wikipedias as a controlling influence over our category structure, much less third-parties.
- We should develop our structure appropriately and only then worry about how to properly stitch it to Wikidata.
- Production is about goods and services, and about all three (or more) economic sectors, it cannot be a subcategory of Industry.
- I prefer clarity too.
- New questions:
- (for Josh:) Why should Manufacturing be a subcategory of Industry? Can Manufacturing not also be done in small workshops and/or by craftspeople?
- What Economic activities are not Production?
About the category structure: I agree that Category:Production should be the top category. Part of the structure can be:
- Production
- Industry (manufacturing) / Industrial production - the large-scale organized production of goods
- Manufacturing
- Domestic work
- Agriculture, Mining, Retail, etc.
- Industries (economics)
- Economic sectors - with the subcategories of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd sectors again?
- Industry (manufacturing) / Industrial production - the large-scale organized production of goods
--JopkeB (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with most of that. Except I'm not a huge fan of the idea of having "by industry" categories like Category:Businesspeople by industry, Category:Logos associated with industries or Category:Business organizations by industry because they just becomes dumps for child categories where the subject has nothing to an industry. If you want an example of that check out Category:Logos by industry which apparently is being used for "associated with" categories. "associated with" has it's own issues, but that's a discussion for another time. The more important thing here is that most of those categories aren't for industries and are really "by subject" categories. The problem is that people think everything is an "industry" when it isn't. Mainly they are subjects. Same goes for Category:Logos associated with industries. Something being "associated with industries" is just nonsensical. So I don't think there should be "by industry" categories to begin with. Let alone "associated with industries" or similar categories. I don't see an issue with the rest of your suggestion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Adamant1, As you pointed out: your objections against the categories by industry/associated with industries are for another time, you can start one or more discussions about them yourself. As long as these categories exist in their current context, they schould have Category:Industries as a parent. Do you agree?
- I think this discussion is about the differences between "Industry", "Industries" and "Manufacturing", and a proper category structure for them, isn't it? (You started this discussion, so I guess you know best.)
- I am glad that you don't see an issue with the rest of my suggestions. I'll wait for reactions of Josh and S.K. and then we can go forward and perhaps close this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine. I'm still strongly of the belief that if you approve of one aspect of something it's much to disapprove of another aspect of it later, but I don't it should hold up the discussion if everything else is figured out either. So I'm fine with your conclusions being implemented in the interim. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with most of that. Except I'm not a huge fan of the idea of having "by industry" categories like Category:Businesspeople by industry, Category:Logos associated with industries or Category:Business organizations by industry because they just becomes dumps for child categories where the subject has nothing to an industry. If you want an example of that check out Category:Logos by industry which apparently is being used for "associated with" categories. "associated with" has it's own issues, but that's a discussion for another time. The more important thing here is that most of those categories aren't for industries and are really "by subject" categories. The problem is that people think everything is an "industry" when it isn't. Mainly they are subjects. Same goes for Category:Logos associated with industries. Something being "associated with industries" is just nonsensical. So I don't think there should be "by industry" categories to begin with. Let alone "associated with industries" or similar categories. I don't see an issue with the rest of your suggestion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |
| |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Denkmal Pohlen: Pohlen ist ein Ortsteil von Linda bei Weida und liegt im Landkreis Greiz! 87.147.61.158 09:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Nothing to do. GeorgHH • talk 15:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation is required to distinguish the cities in Venezuela and Mexico with the identical name. A1Cafel (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The city in Spain is the oldest, but Mérida in Mexico and Mérida in Venezuela are both more populous. No objection to making "Category:Mérida" into a disambiguation. However reworking from the current usage to refer to the city in Spain would also need moving and recategorization of the relevant subcategories and media. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Closing, already turned into a disambiguation in November 2023. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Two images for the city seems too granular. There are no other images for the US category for that specific day and Category:September 1983 in New York (state) has only seven other images. Suggest upmerger to US category and New York state category. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted and the 2 images moved up categories per nom. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Single-use; redundant to Category:COVID-19 pandemic in unidentified locations of the United Kingdom, Category:COVID-19 pandemic in England and Category:Unidentified locations in England. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to remove this category for now. There are various locations in the multiple image that could be added to differing counties in Category:COVID-19 pandemic in England. Acabashi (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've moved File:COVID 19 in England collage 1.jpg to the Category:COVID-19 pandemic in England category since it specifies different locations in England. If there are enough other files likely to be added we could keep it or otherwise merge as suggested. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, empty cat -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Doublon de Category:Roads and streets named after Marseille , vide, à supprimer Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are right, I think both categories can be merged. My proposal: Category:Roads and streets named after Marseille schould be kept, the other one should have a redirect. --JopkeB (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Closing, already made into redirect. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this category should be deleted. For categories like "Museums in Antigua & Barbuda", "Lighthouses in Antigua and Barbuda" etc., the parent category "Buildings in Antigua and Barbuda" is sufficient,. There is no need for an intermediate parent category "Buildings in Antigua and Barbuda by function". Loranchet (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- It should not be deleted; it should be used as is. This is the pattern used by many/all other countries and there is no stated or obvious reason why this country should be treated any differently, especially since the sub-categories contain function level contents as are reflected in their names. Hmains (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Closing as Kept, no consensus to delete. Matches categorization for other countries. May not be as important for such smaller countries, but in proper use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)