If buildings by architects are copyrighted until 70 years after the architect dies, then these images would appear to need a license from the architect or heirs. Maybe some are non-artistic, but none contains any obvious permission. 84user (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There still could be images of buildings which do not require permission due to de minimis or other reason, however I tend to agree that this kind of category is not very useful. Buildings are known by location or architect or by period of construction (century, eventually decade) not by year of completion. Just taking as an example one of the most populated categories of this type Category:Built in the United States in 1975 reveals how useless they are. In my opinion this is just disruptive category clutter. There is already a Category:20th century architecture in Belgium, and for engineering structures a category such as "20th century structures in Belgium" would far more useful. --ELEKHHT22:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I missed that it's the date of death and not the completion date that is relevant for copyright (even though I had written just that).
I actually did not intend to suggest this category should be deleted, instead that the images need to be discussed. I *assumed* this category was made to help with copyright determination but the completion date does not help. Maybe Category:Buildings in Belgium by architect's year of death would be useful: if before 1941 we know the building and photographs of it are in the public domain. A mass deletion nomination might be in order. Another example is Category:Buildings in France by year of completion with 172 subcategories and half of them built after 1860. -84user (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All this fop lunacy gradually ended up in the depletion of "by year" and "by architect" categories. Not through deletion, but because smart ass uploaders like yours truly deliberately evade these categories. No wonder Belgian "by year categories" are empty. Perhaps deletion is, indeed, justified. NVO (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done In the no-FOP-in-Belgium discussion, it should be the files to be deleted, not the categories. Moreover, these categories don't tell anything about the no-FOP-status. Henxter (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I would note two things. First, I don't personally want to get involved in a debate over notability (I will leave that to others), but even the English Wikipedia has the Scottish town at en:Tobermory, Mull (with the plain title a DAB page). Having said that, unless it's a major city, we typically do not have a system of PRIMARYUSE here on Commons as they do on the English-language Wikipedia. Commons categories are a very different animal than en.wp article titles (where notability is an issue when it comes to disambiguation), and given that are categorizing 4,000,000+ new files a year (plus the existing and growing backlog), our default if there is any issue is to disambiguate (especially given how much categorization here is done through hotcat, which means people often don't even see the category to which they are adding content). I'm not saying that Category:Tobermory needs to be a DAB page here (I leave that to the better judgment of others), but I just wanted people to know that the issue is more complicated than simply determining which settlement is more notable. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are you talking about? Nobody moved those categories. You've just moved dozens of files and several sub-categories from the widely used "Tobermory" category to the unused "Tobermory, Mull" category. As of yesterday, only a handful of files were ever in the "Tobermory, Mull" category. So you've just prejudiced the discussion by moving all those files into wrong choice: the neglected category. I can't fine any guideline on Commons for category names and disambiguation categories -- can you point it it. It seems in this regard Commons defers to Wikipedia guidelines. FWIW, I think en-wp has also chosen wrongly wrt disambiguation and their choice doesn't follow their own guideline. Please revert all your changes until this discussion is over. Colin (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, how was anyone expected to know what the state of affairs had been given that you'd already emptied out Category:Tobermory, Mull and gave no explanation as to how things had stood or what the problem was (other than you thought the Scottish town deserved the plain title)? Nobody has prejudiced anything - please have a bit of good faith and assume others aren't out to get you. I'm happy to sort it all out, but a friendly note works better than a lecture. As for guidelines, we don't defer to English Wikipedia (especially in cases like this where we are dealing with apples and oranges) and for most things we do not have policies or guidelines.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have reverted it back to how it stood. Ideally, we'd revert back to how things stood before anything was moved or emptied, but these CFD discussions can linger and having two categories for the same town can't possibly be helpful for any Commons users. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't you what you are talking about wrt "bad faith" or assuming anyone is "out to get me". You made a mistake and I'm glad you've revert it. You are an admin, I'm not. I expect you to know what your are doing. to do your homework before acting, and to leave things alone while something is being debated. Colin (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Multichill, Category:Tobermory should be a disambiguation container for Category:Tobermory, Mull and Category:Tobermory, Mull. I support this position for two reasons, the first being that we are not ENWP, so en:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply here (this is the crux of colin's argument). The second is per COM:CAT (which does apply here) lead: A category is ... a special page which is intended to group related pages and media. In practice, it implies that you'll associate a single subject with a given category. (emphasis in original) There should be no guess work about which Tobermory the category is about, categories should be definitive, hence my support of the disambiguation. Liamdavies (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a discussion on the en:wp article as that is clearly at the wrong place per en:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I find that Commons guideline/policy pages are, well, crap really. The word "disambiguation" doesn't appear on the page. So really Commons has no policy on the issue. That's a poor state of affairs, so how is anyone supposed to know what to do? I followed the example for Category:Dundee but see that Category:Paisley is the opposite. I appreciate there is conflict between the precision of "Tobermory, Mull" and the naturalness of "Tobermory" as the primary topic for the name. It doesn't seem helpful for Commons to have no guideline/policy on the issue. Colin (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Commons just works differently than Wikipedia. A lot of the time, I like the fact that there is a smaller pool of editors and that every single thing is not codified in a policy or guideline (Wikipedia discussions often devolve into legal interpretation over its voluminous reams of policies, guidelines and manuals), and that we tend to rely a lot on practice and common understanding. But that approach has its evident drawbacks too, as you well know. At the end of the day, I am not fussed where we categorize the Scottish town. However, I am just concerned that users using hotcat will have no idea where they are placing content, which would not be a problem if the plain title were a DAB. That's not the end of the world, though, given neither Tobermory generates huge amounts of content for us. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need volumes of guidelines, but if we have such things as disambiguation categories, we should at least document how to use them and name them. I think generally Commons policy/guideline pages are badly written, verbose and could be more concise and helpful. There's an amateurish feel to it you get with open-source software documentation. Wikipedian's know how to write whereas Commons folk either know how to take pictures or the mechanics of organising stuff -- so that doesn't lend itself to well written help-pages just like open-source programmers aren't good at documentation. Hotcat should not be offering disambiguation pages as category choices. I'm also not strongly fussed which way this goes but clearly Commons has both examples (Paisley/Dundee) and no written guidance on the matter. This isn't good. And Hotcat needs fixed too. Perhaps I shall raise these issues at the relevant talk pages. Colin (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There being no advance in nearly three years, I'm closing this as follows: There is no need for us to follow en:WP polices because categorising images doesn't necessarily follow their nomenclature (expecially when it's wrong). However, "Tobermory (disambiguation)" seems unnecessary and in Scotland at least, there don't appear to be any similarly-named pages. Since it seems that the only other one is in Canada, this can be fixed by hatnotes rather than a DAB page. The content of "Tobermory, Mull" will move to "Tobermory" and
the former will be a redirect. I'll add hatnotes to both articles. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appropriate redirect as London 2012 corresponds to the Paralympics as well. Either have 2012 summer oly and 2012 summer para linked from this category or it should be deleted entirely imo for being misleading Flickrworker (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created April 13th. At that time there were other categories, like Category:Homelessness in Toronto and Category:Homeless shelters in Toronto. I see no sign of any discussion as to why this cateogory should be placed in parallel with the existing categories in April, and I see no sign of any discussion that all the images in those categories should be moved into this category.
Categories are an inherently flawed feature, for many reasons, including that they don't record any history of their elements. So long as we are going to continue to use them while we wait for a superior replacement, I regard it as ESSENTIAL we use them in a disciplined way.
In particular, no matter how much confidence you have in your reasoning, PLEASE don't hijack the contents of existing categories without explanation.
If you are an administrator PLEASE don't encourage chaos by deleting empty categories without checking to see if it recently had its elements hijacked.
Maybe there are arguments for Category:Homeless of Toronto, consistency with other cities, or something. But some of these images are not of homeless people, but are of their squats, or shelters -- so they don't fit in this category name. Geo Swan (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody hijacked a category, and there was no chaos. Such accusations are neither correct nor helpful.
As for the substantive issue, there appears to be a category structure consisting of a parent, "Category:Homelessness in [place]", with subs "Category:Homeless of [place]" for people and "Category:Homeless shelters in [place]" for buildings and facilities serving the homeless. That makes sense. Geo is absolutely correct that some of the content in Category:Homeless of Toronto does not belong there, and it is completely unclear why Category:Homelessness in Toronto and Category:Homeless shelters in Toronto were incorrectly deleted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add the main point of this is if you look at the other categories to do with this team, some are at Inter Milan, others are at FC Internazionale or any change upon that, so we need something that is consistent.
"Football Club Internazionale Milano" is the proper name of the club, it's not "FC Internazionale". If you see the club badge (here, for example) it reads "FCIM" which is the acronymous as "Football Club Internazionale Milano", as well as, i.e. "Amatori Rugby Milano is the proper name of the rugby union club. Other names as "Inter Milan" or "FC Inter" and so are wrong. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)
Indeed my goal is to uniform all the subcategories to the style as "Players of Football Club Internazionale Milano", "Coaches of Football Club Internazionale Milano" and so on. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] P.S. FC Internazionale Milano is also fine. What I meant to say is that "Milano" is part of the proper name of the club.
I'd be interested in the thoughts of others, but it seems to me that this category should be renamed Category:Homeless people (along with subcats). While the term "homeless" is generally understood among English speakers as referring to people, from an organizational and ease-of-categorization perspective (on Commons, a multilingual project), using the term "homeless people" I think would help clarify the intent of this category (focus on the people) and help distinguish it from other existing and potential subcategories of Category:Homelessness . Just a thought. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clean-up work. Although categories such as these were generally moved to the "monuments and memorials" format two or three years ago, there are a number still around that have not yet been renamed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is the name of a band. Could you point me to the policy which states that such names should be translated? --Tsui (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not stupid. And I am active and contrubuting here since the beginning of Commons, so I am quite familiar with the rules and policies.
The examples in Commons:Categories#Category_names are about general terms like "Tools", "Artists" (as a group of people, not for the single artists or bands), "Lakes", "Paintings" and so on, respectively general themes or activities such as "History", "Weather", "Music" etc. But nowhere the rules and policies state, that names should be translated. Nobody would search for this band as "Mussig Gang" - which is nothing, neither German nor English. If you want to translate it, it would be something like "Idle Gang" respectively "Idleness" (= German: "Müßiggang"), because the name is a wordplay and can be read in two ways, which would be completely lost when trying to translate it. --Tsui (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the name of a band. Could you point me to the policy which states that such names should be translated? --Tsui (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not stupid. And I am active and contrubuting here since the beginning of Commons, so I am quite familiar with the rules and policies.
The examples in Commons:Categories#Category_names are about general terms like "Tools", "Artists" (as a group of people, not for the single artists or bands), "Lakes", "Paintings" and so on, respectively general themes or activities such as "History", "Weather", "Music" etc. But nowhere the rules and policies state, that names should be translated. Nobody would search for this band as "Mussig Gang" - which is nothing, neither German nor English. If you want to translate it, it would be something like "Idle Gang" respectively "Idleness" (German: "Müßiggang"), because the name is a wordplay and can be read in two ways, which would be completely lost when trying to translate it. --Tsui (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to post in one place and I think you should do the same. It is not written as it is meant to be assumed by "all categories should be in English". Please don't be selective in what you quote. Line above what you quoted "Category names should generally be in English." So what's so hard with the interpretation and assumption? It clearly means all categories should be in English no matter what the subject is. Flickrworker (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use examples from English Wikipedia. That place is being destroyed. It's not the English wiki anymore. My interpretation is not silly but a logical implementation of the policy. Flickrworker (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you suggestion for changing the name is "silly", I wrote your interpretation seems absurd to me.
So you do not like en.wikipedia (anymore). Alright. So what? I suggested, you should (first) try to rename some categories of better known bands and people if you want to enforce your interpretation of the policy. Let's see what others think about it.
One thing that the policy does not make clear anyway is, if "Category names should generally be in English" is meant as a recommendation for translation or transcription. Your suggestion above ("Mussig Gang") would be some kind of a transcription. A translation would, as mentioned above, be "idle gang/idleness". The proposal for Commons:Naming categories which is mentioned and recommended for further reading at Commons:Language policy clearly states: Names in Latin-derived alphabets are used in original form, including diacritics and additional letter forms.
Seriously you're starting to annoy me with this goading of go and move this category. What you stated was a proposal and is therefore unfortunately not a policy so one can not implement as such. I say unfortunate as it has a good line in it about little known people/towns/bands what not, being at it's local language if one deemed it to relatively unknown in the global scheme. But it's a proposal so we have to go with what is policy. Flickrworker (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Annoying is what this whole discussion is to me. Seriously is another good keyword: What about "Motörhead"? Seriously. --Tsui (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a category named XYZ Line in Nules Bunker 2. That's the correct name and this category should be eliminated. B25es (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The front is known as Línea XYZ or línea XYZ. Main category is line but other bunkers in the Nules group are spelt Line. I agree that all should be either line or Line. On one hand, the first category opened here was spelt line so the others should follow suit. But it would requiere changing three categories: Category:XYZ Line in Nules Bunker 2, Category:XYZ Line in Nules Bunker 1 and Category:XYZ Line in Nules Bunker 4. I have to say that the inconsistent use of capitals is all my fault. B25es (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been researching the bunkers in Nules and they do not belong to the XYZ Line. The front was stablished there from July 8th 1938 to the end of the war. The bunkers were built by Francoist troops. That's why they have machine-gun nests facing South and entrances from the North. Well, now I have to rewrite many descriptions on bunkers 1, 2 and 4; I must rename all files, changing the caption XYZ line into Civil War. I will also create a category with an appropiate name. So, all categories relating XYZ line and Nules will soon be empty. B25es (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, enWP says "Leonard Limousin (or Limosin) ". I guess both names are correct and would suggest using the older category. It also matches French Wikipedia. I have taken the freedom of amending the creator template with an additional alternate name. This category need not be deleted, it can be kept as a redirect. --rimshottalk18:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Unless we are dealing with a proper name, we generally try to keep category names in the subject + modifier format (e.g. Buildings in Calgary, Architecture of Canada, not Calgary buildings, Canadian architecture). All of the entries in Category:Islands by lake have the same issue, but most of the content in the parent Category:Categories by lake seems okay. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some way we could merge these categories? They are essentially the same thing. I suspect (unless someone has better information) that "bread line" and "soup line" are largely expressions, and that either bread or soup, or likely both (or even other food), could be served at the end of any of these queues. In any event, I think Commons users are better served by having all this media in one place. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no input, so I merged the two into Category:Bread lines, but leaving Category:Soup line as a redirect. I chose bread line simply because it didn't need to be renamed (Category:Soup line isn't pluralized like it is supposed to be), Category:Bread lines already had a subcat for bread lines in Lisbon, and the English Wikipedia soup kitchen article refers to bread lines, but not soup lines. Obviously, these changes are without prejudice if someone wants to reconsider this in the future and there is consensus for that change. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused, unneeded redirect. Bad grammar an capitalization makes it not useful as a likely alternate wording. It keeps showing up in HotCat, too, and that's annoying and may cause miscategorization. -- Tuválkin✉19:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A better name would be "Category:..., Margrave of Baden". The term "Margrave of Baden-Baden" is used only for the period of 1535–1771 when the Margraviate was divided. Passerose (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Namensergänzung: Der Name dieser Kat. sollte wg. der "Category:Rose gardens in Germany" "Rosengarten im Grüttpark Lörrach" lauten. Dietrich (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe alle Dateien in die neue Katgeorie "Rosengarten im Grüttpark Lörrach" einsortiert. Damit kann "Rosengarten im Grüttpark" nun gelöscht werden. -- Dietrich (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mir so lang wie breit, ob die Kategorie Englisch oder Deutsch geschrieben wird. Hier kann man es eh niemandem recht machen, so meine Erfahrung; egal wie man es macht. Da es nur einen Grüttpark gibt, halte ich den Zusatz für überflüssig. Aber auch das ist mir wumpe. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a non-standard category so I suggest its deletion. The standard category is "United Kingdom" with sub-categories for the UK's four constituent nations. Motacilla (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain why this is called "Fractals (choice)", what choice means in this context? if it doesnt have a specific meaning, it should be upmerged to fractals Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering the same thing. I would say that we should merge the category. I've been unable to work out what choice means. Zellfaze (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hispanic also refers to Hispanic culture, art, ie art not specific to a particular ethnic group of the hispanic world, but more pan-hispanic (esp in western us). I suggest move to (or make a new sub cat of ) Category:Hispanic culture, with sub cats for the people, etc. I would like more points of view, considering that Hispanic/Latino is debated enough to justify a WP article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This category should sit directly under Category:Buses in Melbourne. The company has operated in one form or another from 1993 to 2013, when all it's routes were subsumed by Transdev Melbourne, it was purchased by Ventura in 2004, but operated independently. As it operated independently (either self operating, under the British parent, or under Ventura), and no longer is part of Ventura group it should be listed under Category:Buses in Melbourne so people not privvy the the complicate bus situation in Melbourne can logically find images. There is currently a hatnote in Ventura stating Ventura's previous ownership of National Bus. Liamdavies (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All but one photograph, are during Ventura's ownership (2004-2013). National Bus is now a defunct Ventura owned company, after it had lost the Government bus route contact to Transdev. Bidgee (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this category is incorrect. The real name is Milltown Malbay, with two L's. That part is derived from a number of watermills located in the townland Poulawillin (Poll a' Mhuillinn|pool of the mill) once the name of the town The Banner (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The name is spelled with one letter l here. Probably the user who created the category used this source. I'm afraid to correct it we need a bot, moderator or both Klaas|Z4␟V: 10:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the heading says Milltown, the text says Miltown. Looks more like a typo to me than a conscious choice. Also, there are 302 results for 'Miltown Malbay' on that page vs. 86 for 'Milltown Malbay'. The church parish is Miltown Malbay Parish. The city limits sign says Miltown Malbay, as does the road sign we have on Commons. Given these, I would tend to keep the current name. --rimshottalk18:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even the census records say Miltown. Was it renamed at some point? Are both spellings official? I find such pervasive misspellings on physical signs as well as official records quite odd. --rimshottalk20:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official spelling but Milltown Malbay is now on the signs. But with a place name derived from the corn mills, the double l seems to be the correct one. The Banner (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where I live it's quite unimaginable not to have an official spelling for a town name, but if that is the case, the category name doesn't really matter. The Ordnance Survey has Milltown, though, and there seem to be no objections but mine. I will move the category to Category:Milltown Malbay. The old name should be kept as a redirect. --rimshottalk18:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The category tree had gotten slightly muddled here; I've fixed it so that the sole entry is now correctly placed in Category:Tudor Revival architecture in Quebec, and located that appropriately as well. The above four are now empty and redundant. (Also incorrect in the latter two cases; there is no actual Elizabethan architecture in Canada.) — Scott•talk20:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change this category to "Category:Inscribed boards".
Reason: There are not only "Horizontal" boards,
a large number of exterior boards are VERTTICAL, the creator of this category is completely ignorant about Chinese language Gisling (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, categories of existing localities which are properly named, categorized, described and equiped by correct interwikis (and possibly linked from Wikidata) should not be deleted (even if they are empty at the moment) because such deletion and discussions are counterproductive. Empty categories should be deleted only in cases that they are clearly useless, redundant or incorrect. Promising and systematically expectable and desirable categories which should be filled prospectively should be kept. --ŠJů (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senseless as every category "Former" or "Current" "players of ...." . Commons has not a "Now" and a "Before". Not to mention that such categories should require a high maintenance (at least yearly). No use and no sense to keep them. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)12:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senseless as every category “Former” or “Current players of…”. Commons has not a “Now” and a “Before”. Not to mention that such categories should require a high maintenance (at least yearly). No use and no sense in keeping them. --SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)12:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This bread brand is quickly growing and massivly advertising in Austrian sports, I'm pretty sure we'll get more pictures soon... --AleXXw06:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Yeah, this is apparently an international brand. I dont like categories with only one image, but that appears to be acceptable here, so i withdraw my nom unless this small cat is against policy.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Normally I'd agree, while noting that the rule is not quite that all category names must be in English, but rather that we should use the name most commonly used in English (whether that is in English or some other language). The English Wikipedia is usually a good indicator of English-language usage, and its article is currently at Ivory Coast. However, one look at en:Talk:Ivory Coast shows that there is serious debate and disagreement over at en.wp over whether the article should be at Ivory Coast or Côte d'Ivoire (including a debate over which name is used most often in English). I don't think we should repeat that divisive debate here on the Commons. My inclination is leave it at the official name for now. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I feel we should ignore en wiki as it seems to be driven by people who have no regards for the rules and use foreign language sources and then claim that it is it's proper name in English. Or who just ignore the rules and seem to want to create an "International Wiki" on the English site. One must also note that the last move was carried out by an admin using common sense rules and that the move to Cote d'Ivoire apparently had no clear consensus itself to start with. The only place I see Cote d' Ivoire in use is during international football or rugby competitions. Flickrworker (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as per another similar CFD discussion, we need more than just the impugning of the motives of contributors over at the English Wikipedia. You may be absolutely correct, or not, but it doesn't really matter. How do some of the major newspapers in English-speaking countries refer to the country? What do Google news, web and scholar searches show is more popular in English - Ivory Coast or Côte d'Ivoire? If this is a controversial issue, we need more than just dislike of certain folks at Wikipedia to make this move, especially given that a move without any evidence could potentially upset people here too. This isn't a typically clear cut language issue like we normally deal with here (e.g. Category:Navire à passagers should be moved to Category:Passenger ships).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To save everyone's time just look at the en wiki talk page. I think most of what you're wanting has been published on there since this has been going on for years. Flickrworker (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough and good point. As I mentioned yesterday, though, I did look it. It simply demonstrated to me that this is a highly controversial issue and there is much debate over the common English-language usage. Keep in mind that although we have a rule that Commons categories use English, this is a multilingual project. That adds another prism to this discussion that didn't exist at en.wp. In any event, I'd be very interested in seeing what others have to say about this. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, as best as I can tell, this issue does not appear to have ever come up as a discussion on the Commons, even though it appears to have been endlessly debated over at en.wp. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
en.wiki has gone for en:Ivory Coast as the best name for an article title after years of discussion. Naming categories on Commons does take what en.wp does into account; that said, this is clearly a controversial move which would need wider discussion than this to be acted upon –moogsi (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Is there any reason to categorize copyright exemption tag on exUSSR basis? There's some earlier talk that doesn't really answer this question. It's claimed that all exUSSR countries have similar copyright laws and refuted by the fact that Baltic states as independent countries have always had more similar copyright to EU countries. So, even if other exUSSR countries have copyright laws similar to USSR ones, then all exUSSR countries can't be united on such basis. Also, many jurisdications of the world have similar copyright exemptions, not just exUSSR countries. It's true that it's rather common to exUSSR countries, that there's no freedom of panorama, but that's not related to copyright exemption (architectural works, sculptures etc. are usually still copyrightable).
So, is there any better reason to have this category than reasons for having, say, "Category:CC BY-SA tags of the coffee exporting countries"? As it's inaccurate and politically inappropriate to emphasise exUSSR status (see category talk) and if there is no good reason to categorize these tags in such way, I suggest nuking this category. 88.196.241.24914:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category has obviously useful organizational purposes; & with all due respect, based on their comments, the nominator seems to have (obliquely) nnpov reasons for nominating it. like it, or not, ALL the ex-ussr states do share a common legal history; whatever their present situation. Lx 121 (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How comes it's obviosly useful? (See my last comment about it.) And how comes that my reasons are nnpov? Nnpov reasons for having this category is partly the reason why I'm nominating it. Yes, ex-ussr states do share a common (legal) history, but today's copyright laws are about the present situation. 88.196.241.24911:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not history. Is is present. The all 15 exUSSR-repubics (and also PMR, SO, Abh) have very-very-very similar exempt-section in their CR-laws - their are more-more similar with each other, than with other Berne-Conv-states (for examples, they all exclude not only official docs, but official imgs as well, compared to other Berne-Conv-states, which exclude only docs as default generally). This is not Category:PD-exUSSR license tags (and I could be concordant with you for such case), but this is Category:PD-exUSSR-exempt license tags. Alex Spade (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this being about copyright exemption (see above). What you summarize isn't quite correct, e.g. in Estonia offical images are not exempt from copyright. Other than that, mostly the exemption is about offical docs, insignia, ideas, facts and such and that for many other countries than exUSSR too. Even if exUSSR copyright exemptions were tiny a bit more similar to each other than to other countries', I don't see a good reason to have such grouping here, especially one that emphasizes that some countries were occupied in the past and arbitrarily relates it to copyright. 88.196.241.24917:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Official imgs are flags, coats of arms, orders, medals, badges, etc. I do not mean anything besides such list. The most of other BC-states have not mentioned such imgs clearly in their CR-laws, they only mentioned official docs (laws, orders, court decisions, etc.). Docs are not imgs. Commons is not support extension of uncopyrightability of official docs to official imgs without clear and direct mentioning in concrete CR-law. Alex Spade (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of other countries where coats of arms and other such are clearly exempt from copyright, take for example a few countries in northern Europe: 1, 2, 3, 4. And this doesn't seem to be some odd Soviet-like region. But what's more important, I repeat my question, even if there is some tiny notable resemblance among exUSSR copyright laws and even if not noting the resemblance with the rest of the world, then how is it useful and justified to have such category despite the drawback? 88.196.241.24921:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, other countries with similar exemptions exist. But they have not historic or present community in this question - for example, some EU-countries have such exemptions, someones have not, some G7-countries have such exemptions, someones have not. It is useful, then someone works with official docs and imgs from Soviet period. {{PD-RU-exempt}} is suitable only for docs and imgs of Union level and RSFSR; when someone works works with official docs and imgs of Republic level, he chooses the respective republic tag: we have not just time to unify their appearance (like it was made with RU, BY, TJ) and add especial description for Baltic states. Alex Spade (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chicoloapan de Juárez is the name of the municipality's seat, the municipality itself is simply called Chicoloapan, which should be the category's name, if the category is in the municipality tree. → «« Man77 »»[de]18:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no other municipalities named Chicoloapan, I agree. If so, we should distinguish with the state name (assuming the two are not in the same state).Thelmadatter (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The number of Mexican municipalities having Chicoloapan as their name or as part of their name equals one.
The number of Mexican villages having Chicoloapan as their name or as part of their name equals two (Chicoloapan de Juárez and Ejido de Chicoloapan, both in Chicoloapan municipality).
By merge do you mean move the simply move the content? Or move the content and make this one a redirect? I think this should stay as a disambiguation, but should probably have a metacat tag placed on it, and obviously be emptied. Liamdavies (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to attract someone who knows Scottish geography. I've already sorted out a bunch of Scottish images and categories that were categorized under British Columbia, but there are some remaining that I can't judge without checking a map. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect (I'm in South Wales, we have the same problem) than "Moray" and "Banffshire" are somewhat orthogonal. One is the name of a county or region that has been widely used since pre-Roman times. The other was invented in 1973, by a guy in a suit from Whitehall. Both are now "correct", but one is more useful than the other. :en:WP uses "Moray", which is as good a reason as any to choose. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have found that WP incorrectly uses Moray (the council name) rather than the correct name of the County, as in the case of Craigellachie, Banffshire. The council is the Local Government authority for the county, but it is not the county. There may be someone of authority in the Land Register Office, Scotland or the Survey Office who may be able to determine whether Craigellachie is in County Moray or County Banff. Thanks Scotire (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Craigellachie is listed in County Banff in the 2003 Land Register Counties, leaflet - Banff. towns. ref. Land Register Counties. leaflet. counties and places. towns. www.ros.gov.uk Land Registration of County Banff, towns list. 2003. Towns in Banffshire were :
FOR having Craigellachie in it's correct county of Banffshire There is no reason to change Craigellachie from being in it's correct county of Banff to the incorrect county of Moray. One solution is to keep it in the Category of Banffshire and then have it in the Category of Towns and Villages in Moray (Moray only being the council). The Moray council is composed of persons elected by residents of both the County of Banff and the County of Moray, but the council is just that - a management council for the actual places of County Banff and County Moray. We are talking about the actual place - not the management of those places. It appears to outsiders that the Moray council is using wikimedia.commons as a means of recording every house in it's council area. The County should come first, not the houses. Scotire (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FOR having Craigellachie with a Category "Banffshire" and Category "Towns and villages in Moray". Refer National Library of Scotland. map. OS Popular edition, Scotland 1921-1930. Sheet 39 - Dufftown and Huntley. http://maps.nls.uk/view/74400634 The map clearly defines the boundary as going down center of the river. The traditional counties of Scotland do exist for current land land property sales and as they are listed under the county name "Banffshire" the user of Comons would definitely find them useful, instead of searching for a town in Moray which wouldn't exist there. Scotire (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Banffshire has cultural significance, but its only practical purpose is for issues relating to land registry. A major reason for its continued identity is its use in postal addresses (and Royal Mail wants to deprecate counties entirely in addresses). In contrast, the modern council areas are used for a wide variety of purposes, and is not restricted to council services like would be the case if they are solely for council management activity. Online mapping (Bing, Google, OSM) use the council areas, as do UK-specific services like Geograph, Streetmap or the AA. Ordnance Survey only records the council areas on its current mapping databases and products. Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland allow searching by council area, not county. The protected areas for whisky production are defined in terms of the council areas. All that means its significantly more useful for our end users to note the council area; which is why WP follows that practice.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting away from the main point. Craigellachie is in Banffshire. Refer to previous map reference. The county categories were created years ago and since then tens of thousands of photos have been placed in Scottish county categories, including about 2500 in the Banffshire category. Who put them in the Banffshire category to be sorted in to towns ? What is the use of people placing about 2500 photos in the Category of Banffshire if, in your point of view, they should have placed them in Moray or Aberdeenshire. Are those thousands of people wrong ? Scotire (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A map reference from the 1930s? That proves it was in Banffshire in 1930 (not disputing), but says nothing about today. The main reason for the quantity of images in Category:Banffshire was the rather unintelligent way the Geograph Bot upload was programmed, its not thousands of people but ONE person uploading literally millions of images (with rather poor localisation). With ideal coding, no county cat would have had any images placed in it, whether it was Banffshire, Carmarthenshire or Suffolk. (as it all would have gone in subcats).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the correct postal address for Craigellachie Post Office (as provided by Royal Mail) is "Post Office, Victoria Street, Craigellachie, ABERLOUR, AB38 9SR". RM does not use counties of any description as part of the address definition, but at present retains support of all sorts of counties in the alias file. They are never required address elements, and RM wants to drop all mention of counties in near future.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any move from, Moray, to Banffshire, for this category. Current council areas should be used for disambigation when required (as it is here), following practice at WP (as defined at w:WP:UKPLACE). This shouldn't be overturned without good reason; and ideally coordination with Wikipedia. Its not good practice to have Commons cats and en.wp articles for the same concept at conflicting names.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per Nilfanion above, and for the same reasons. We already have a category structure that works and is easily understandable by any user, particularly bearing in mind that what we are doing here is categorising images and not recreating history. The traditional Scottish counties no longer exist in any sense in which a user of Commons would find them useful, except for old maps, etc. It's as if we should have categories in England relating to modern topics categorised by, e.g. Mercia, Wessex, etc., and that wouold be just pointless. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any move involving Banffshire per Nilfanion, Skeezix1000 and others above. We normally use local authority areas for categorisation and Craigellachie is in Moray, so "Craigellachie, Moray" is fine. "Craigellachie, Banffshire" is simply a nonsense based on obscurantist debating points. W. L. Tarbert (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Known as David Rudisha, which would be Common name. Since their are no other people known as David Rudisha I see no justification to have the cat with a middle name in it. Move to David Rudisha. Flickrworker (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the native french term for Category:Flea markets, and thus should be merged with that. the literal french translation is Marché aux puces, which has an article on the french wp, but appears to be not much different than the article for this term Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
would be a good idea, but Ludwigshafen ist better known and used than Ludwigshafen am Rhein. When does this discussion end? It's from summer 2013 and no consensus found --Saviour1981 (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Senseless as every category “Former” or “Current players of…”. Commons has not a “Now” and a “Before”. Not to mention that such categories should require a high maintenance (at least yearly). No use and no sense in keeping them. --SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)12:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion request should be made for the images in this category that are caught by copyright and are not saved by FOP. This category should not be deleted unless all the content is deleted; some of the files in this category (this and maybe this) might be okay. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the rationale behind this proposal and am aware of this ridiculous law, but this bridge was designed in the late 1940s, presumably by a group of civil cervants of the roadworks Ministry of that time (I couldn't find a name in a quick search), which implies a very low risk of litigation over these pictures. On the other hand, pictures of this bridge are important to articles such as Pont de Recouvrance and are very common illustrations for the city. If they are to be deleted, I will keep my pictures online elsewhere under a free license, so that they can be imported again when this law finally changes... --Jul (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion request should be made for the images in this category that are caught by copyright and are not saved by FOP. This category should not be deleted unless all the content is deleted, and even then it would be without prejudice to it being recreated if someone uploads files related to this school that are unaffected by this issue (not all content related to the École nationale d'ingénieurs de Brest will be of the architecture). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category to "Created with Pstoedit" because most subcategories of Category:SVG graphics by software used are named using this sheme. Pyfisch (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senseless as every category "Former players of ...." . Commons has not a "Now" and a "Before". Not to mention that such categories should require a high maintenance (at least yearly). No use and no sense to keep them. --SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)12:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category to "Created with Matplotlib" because most subcategories of Category:SVG graphics by software used are named using this sheme. Pyfisch (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you suggest that we widen this to the other categories that use the Streetcars in ... syntax? This may get more input and would then completely, standardise the Trams in ... tree, or solidify the status quo. I really thing that we need more input than the same three that argued about the tram stop cat, for this reason I'm abstaining from choosing either way, I just want a standardised outcome. Liamdavies (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good. And, as I said in the last discussion (or was it in a talk page discussion with you?), I have no issue with using more than one term - as long as it is decided at a high level, and there is a standard approach to doing so (for example, we stick to two or three terms, redirects always created, all category names follow the same format). In other words, not one-offs. I don't think that the principle of universality is adversely impacted by recognizing some exceptions, as long as those exceptions are clear, are done comprehensively and the result of a consensus, because then users and contributors can reasonably know what to expect. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My usual inclination would be to start a discussion on the talk page of category:Trams, with a note at VP. However, any approach would work and I am fine with whatever you and Infrogmation think. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say sure, but it occurs to me that the discussion is not limited to the U.S., and a consensus for the U.S. categories only would not really be helpful. I'd start at Category:Trams. Thanks! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm refering to Commons, not en:W. IMHO, it's better to stick with a standard scheme: City, State; I also believe this makes it easier for international users. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly wouldn't add disambiguation as a one-off for this one subcategory. As for the larger issue, I remain unconvinced as to how adding the word "Louisiana" makes it easier for "international users". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but aside from diambiguation, I still believe there is value to having a standard format for Commons, using City, State as the standard. IMHO, it does not make sense to use City, State scheme for some cities and just city for others. We should standardize. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "Louisiana" to this cats name would put it out of sync with the whole "New Orleans" cat tree, and doesn't have any support here, so is unlikely to be done. I would also add that what you are talking about is way out of the purview of this CfD, and this is the wrong venue to be discussing it. Liamdavies (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but I personally disagree. While you are correct about the New Orleans cat structure when viewed in isolation, but when looked at from a higher parent structure, I believe it is helpful to standardize cats. If the standard is "City, State" for categories, than that impacts the structure for this category. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring always typing the full state name in addition to the city name for unambiguous well known cities is a different issue - if you want to bring that up yet again, it should be proposed separately, not discussed here on more narrow discussion about a category regarding transit in a single city. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this very broad category should be called Category:Bread. it was turned into a redirect in 2008, but some of the subcategories here fit better in the singular: Bread baking, Bread mold, Bread crumbs, Bread-related equipment . "Breads" should be reserved for particular breads. similar structure at Category:Cheese. If this was a less important category, i might just swap it all around on my own, but i wanted some consensus. if others agree to this, i think i just need to rearrange the sub cats for each of these (make Breads a sub cat of bread, bread baking a subcat of bread etc), no name change/merge type action needed. (would there be a loss of history if i did this?) I also plan to clean up the 500 images and place them in more precise categories, as i did at coffee, chocolate and cheese. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) [OK]Category:Breads to Category:Bread. I think "Breads" should be redirected "Category:Breads by name" (plural) rather than to "Bread". Plural as we're talking specific, countable, distinguishable types of bread. However, I can see trouble where things like "Category:Wheat bread" should not appear in "by name" (IMO), as it is a broad category of breads, but you can argue it is the name of a bread.
OK. After reading the above again after a long week (ahem) I will request the below changes ONLY and leave the rest as it is for someone else to request if the issue arises again.
Rename Category:Breads to Category:Breads by name (225 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Breads;Breads by name;r; Plural as we're talking specific, countable, distinguishable types of bread. Cat to sit under "Bread" which is then a catch-all for bread-related categories ---- Deadstar (msg) 16:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sub-categories, one can see that they are related, I would say that the grouping of these categories together is valid, though the category itself may need renaming. The best renaming I can think of is en:Taboos.--KTo288 (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
all organized religious and philosophical movements involve some sort of limitation on action, which is dictated primarily by restrictions on what is acceptable to consider (think about). nonviolence is not taboo. abstinence is not taboo. taboos are things you cannot even discuss without being shunned, such as advocacy of incest. this category would have to be one of the primary, close to top level categories, and include every religion, science, philosophy, culture on earth. Taboo would be an easier category to define: any source which labelled an idea as taboo could qualify it. same with "perversion". no one uses the term "mental restriction", its not a common english phrase, not an idea debated constantly. would it include mental retardation, which is definitely a form of mental restriction? would it include "conservative" as liberals would call them mentally restricted? would it include communism, which many philosophers, like arthur koestler, might call mentally restricted? protestants might call catholics mentally restricted, so is catholicism an example of mental restriction?(mercurywoodrose)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taboo may not be the best word, as I said in my commentit was the best I could think of, but taking one example, non violence is not a taboo, it is a result (in some) of a taboo against violence. As I see it the restriction in this category is not a restriction in mental or cognative ability but a psychological aversion to one action or another due to mental conditioning, a restriction on action on the basis of internal barriers rather than external ones; so for example with diet, there may be nothing physically stopping an individual from eating say pork or beef but their upbringing means that they cannot mentally envisage such an action. One way of categorisation is to create a category title and find the subcategories to populate it, this seems to be the opposite a group of objects that require a better title.--KTo288 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that taboo is not your necessarily preferred choice. I understand what you are getting at in your argument (at least i think i do), i just think its too broad to work as a category. at this point, i will simply wait to see what others think. and, if you happen to not have commented on a CFD before, it can take a LOOONG time to get any more responses.:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
due to lack of movement, i went ahead and took all the files out of this category, and turned it into a redirect to Category:Mental illness. the arguments presented in favor give no indication of how it will help us to organize files on wikipedia. there is a principle in law, that of proving too much. every form of thought may also represent a form of restriction of thought, in terms of narrowing ones focus. we dont need universal categories. i could place every file here in Category:Existence or Category:Manifestations in the real world of an impulse to create. hows that help?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lockerroom should be two separate words. Should also be the locker room/dressing room of AC Milan. But since they share the stadium wouldn't it be better just to put the pictures into the san siro category, and delete or have this as a redirect. Flickrworker (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Created with *" / Category:Images by software used / Category:Images by software used / Category:Computer_generated_images / Category:Images by source or Images
Gnuplot diagrams / Category:Diagrams created with / diagrams / images
A lot of files categorize manually to Gnuplot diagrams. It would be easy to cat-a-lot them all to Created with Gnuplot or elsewhere — but these categorisations should not be done manually, only always by template. So this category is a collection of insane categorization, and it would be better to correct them with a bot (replacing the category line by the template transclusion).
There is another point to care for: Gnuplot created images are either vector graphics, or computer graphics (e.g. .PNG). The latter should be distincted from the SVGs with the parameter 1=n, while valid SVGs should use the parameter 1=v. While it is not easy for the template to distinct between SVG and not-SVG, all this can be done easy by a bot!
So several efforts are necessary to get a good organization:
All manual coded categories are to be changed to template transclusion.
All .PNG files should get the parameter 1=n (this allows also a later subcategorisation).
All .SVG files should [be checked and then] get the parameter 1=v
1=v can be preset for all Gnuplot SVGs, and if any W3C-invalid SVG is found it can be changed to err=##
After this bot run(s) the category Gnuplot diagrams is empty and obsolet. All Gnuplot graphics are tagged either PNG, valid SVG (or invalid SVG) and properly categorized.
We just need a friendly bot. sarang♥사랑17:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will copy the parameterizing, and add some description as for categories. Whole the text of the source code has to be one parameter value of the {{Gnuplot}} template, the parameter name may be code= or something else; I will look whether we need more. Of course any wanted categorising can be done when the parameter is used. sarang♥사랑13:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe da noch Probleme: nach <syntaxhiglight> wird {{{code}}} nicht mehr verstanden. Ich suche nach einer Lösung. sarang♥사랑18:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Danke, ich habe gerade etwas wenig Zeit, und bin froh dass ich nicht nach der Lösung suchen musste. Hast du noch Vorschläge zur Formatierung o.ä.? Ehe der {{Test}} in die Originalvorlage übertragen wird.
Die Kategorie "mit Sourcecode" sollte IMHO nicht manuell bedient werden, sondern wie die Hauptkategorie nur per Vorlage. Statt der manuellen Images with Gnuplot source code sollten wir was andres nehmen, zB "containing" oder so, kann ja jederzeit nachträglich ausgetauscht werden. So wie mit "diagrams" und "Created with" ist die Unterscheidung möglich, und der gezielte Einsatz von AWB oder bot machbar. sarang♥사랑05:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ganz deiner Meinung. Mir fällt jetzt auf Anhieb nichts weiter ein, außer deiner Frage der Bez. Script ist zwar ebenfalls treffend, jedoch würde das nicht äquivalent zur üblichen Bezeichnung dieser Kategorie-Gruppe (naja und auch dem Parameter) sein (im Artikel gibt es hier auch keine klare Richtung). Script kann auch eher etwas allg. als Synonym für die gesamte Sprache verstanden werden. Mit dem absichtlichen Duplizieren bin ich mir auch nicht sicher, das könnte man auch ohne 2. Kategorie lösen (wenn auch etwas unperformanter in der Suche). AWB kann einfach alle manuellen Einträge durch die Vorlage ersetzen, oder entsprechend den Code verschieben, worauf es ja so oder so hinauslaufen wird. Ich denke die Feinheiten kann man später noch regeln. → User: Perhelion09:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dann ändere ich "Gnuplot script" wieder zu "Gnuplot source code" - "Gnuplot source" oder "Gnuplot code" allein genügt wohl nicht? Ich fände etwas Kürzeres besser.
Um die erwünschte Differenzierung zu erreichen ist in {{Created with}} eine kleine Erweiterung nötig, habe ich in der talk page angemerkt (ich kann nicht ran wg. protection). Ganz generell ist es doch so, dass too crowded categories need distressing diffusion. Zumindest da kann was erreicht werden, wenn jede Gnuplot-Grafik die richtigen Parameter erhält. Die Kategorie-Verschachtelung wird zwar komplex, aber sehr eindeutig. Die Doku habe ich nun überarbeitet, und auch die Kategoriestruktur angedeutet. Wenn du meinst dass der gegenwärtige Status genügt, werde ich den Test in die Vorlage übertragen und die nötigen Kategorien anlegen.
Ich habe mir mal AWB angesehen; ich werde mich da einarbeiten müssen, denn auf bot-Hilfe warte ich seit Monaten vergeblich. sarang♥사랑10:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aja, das mit der PNG-Unterscheidung kann AWB glaube ich auch (schätze ich einfach mal). Ja AWB ist mächtig (allerdings brauchst du dafür auch xtra eine Genehmigung hier), allerdings auch stark abhängig von deinen Regexp-Fähigkeiten (die auch mal ziemlich ausarten können). Man sollte die Regexp-Schnipsel irgendwo einander austauschen. (Die Error-Parameter-Geschichte geht natürlich nur manuell.)
Das mit der Überschrift habe ich auch schon überlegt, nunja ich würde dann eher für "Gnuplot code" plädieren. Vielen Dank erst mal für die Grundumsetzung. → User: Perhelion10:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soweit ist nun alles aktiv, nur Created with benötigt noch die Erweiterung für PNG. Da muss jemand einen Admin darauf stossen - aber es eilt ja nicht so sehr. Zwei der Kategorien sind als Metakategorien definiert.
Den Aufruf in Augsburg habe ich in die Information gesetzt, was bei dem langen Code zwar nicht so toll aussieht, aber natürlich möglich ist, und hier als Beispiel dient.
RegExp auszutauschen finde ich auch sehr sinnvoll. Für mich ist das neu, und nur anhand der Anleitung/Definition loszulegen erscheint mir diffizil. Wie wäre es, eine Tauschbörse mit Beispielen einzurichten? Mit konkreten Anwendungen, also der RegExp-code mit allem Rundherum. Anfänger wie ich tun sich mit Modifikationen viel leichter, als mit Neuerstellung. sarang♥사랑12:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sehr gut, ich sehe du bist sehr speziell. ;-) Ich könnte ja schon mal was probieren. Eine Unterseite (oder erstmal die Diss) auf COM:AWB würde sich anbieten. Noch mal zur Überschrift: warum ich die kurze Variante für besser halte, bei einigen Grafiken ist z.B nicht der vollständige (Source-) Code sondern nur der ausführende Code(-Teil) ohne Daten angegeben, da wäre ein source code eher falsch. (PS: nebenbei fällt mir ein, wir wollten noch einen AWB-run für die COAinformation machen ;)) → User: Perhelion06:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ich habe auch die erzeugte Überschrift geändert. Möglich ist, statt dem Parameter code was andres, zB source zu verwenden, mit entsprechender anderer Überschrift. Ohne Unterscheidung in den Kategorien. sarang♥사랑06:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After some googleing, I've not found any article about the use of one or other term, but its obvious that both are used.--Coentor (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both terms are in use, and even "crema" seems to be lingüistically more accurate, "cremà" also seems to be more used. After googleing in "fallas.com" (offical website of the JCF, the organisation who makes the festival maybe We should take "cremà" as the good one, because its more common. Maybe if a good reliable source appears argumentating why "crema" is more accurate than "cremà" We should consider the change. Notice (in the google link) that "L'Antiga" (the old one[of Campanar, a neighbourhood in Valencia]) used crema in 2011 but cremà in 2012. So, both terms are interchangeable.--Coentor (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, undo the renaming to "la cremà", close the discussion, and re-open it only if someone gives us some source explaining why "crema" is prefered to "cremà" by linguists. I'll if I find it. Until sources are not showed, "cremà" seems to have more use, so it should be prefered. Thanks, and sorry if I demanded for a renaming without searching for sources before.--Coentor (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi & thanks for the personal attack @ User:AJesseW ^__^
let me be clear I DON'T REALLY CARE WHETHER WE USE "PEOPLE" OR "HUMANS" FOR THE TOP-LEVEL CATEGORY, though i do think that "humans" is slightly more precise.
BUT
is the user actually arguing that we don't need to differentiate chronological age, from stages of development?
is the user actually arguing that it's not useful to provide categories for humans by age, where we have that data available?
or that it's not useful to differentiate these categories by gender?
because, quite frankly, i don't get the nature of the complaint?
CommentThank you for responding -- it's always better to have the original creator of the categories around to explain their intended purpose. Given this, we should probably divide these up into separate DRs. I'll discuss Category:Humans by age here, as that was the one this was originally opened for. I actually agree with you that "humans" is a slightly more precise (or at least, more formal and objective sounding) term, and if we were starting from scratch, I wouldn't object to using Humans instead of People as the preferred term. But we are not starting from scratch, and I do not see (and you don't seem to have explained (so far)) what benefit having bothCategory:People by age and Category:Humans by age gives us. They seem effectively synonymous. If you can clarify the distinction you intended there, that would certainly be helpful.
Finally, as a side note, I presume the "personal attack" you mentioned was in reference to my statement: "another of User:Lx 121's convoluted category names". I disagree that it qualifies as a personal attack, since it does not seem to satisfy the criteria listed here, and in fact, is simply a statement of opinion about category names, along with the accurate statement of fact that those category names were created by you. Nevertheless, I can see how such a statement about something you created could be felt as an attack, and I hope that such feelings do not stop you from explaining your plans for these categories, and continuing to do other useful work for Commons. JesseW (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of this category as a parent of "People by age" is probably supposed to be funny. Merge the two ASAP and cut this nonsense. Orrlingtalk01:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do get the impression that "Humans" would be more suitable here, as this is a sort of a "biological" criterion (parallel to e.g Humans by stage of development) rather than would be "People by occupation" or "by country". Though I won't stand on the way of anyone re-moving it to "People". Orrlingtalk17:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, please do not move categories while the CFD you commenced has not even been ongoing for a full day yet. Second, why the move? You've offered no explanation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a lot of cats in Category:Exhibition Place with the CNE preface, if the preface is changed, I suggest it should be made "Canadian National Exhibition" to sit in line with the contents of Category:CNE, but that this should be universal for all cats with the CNE preface. Having said that, I don't see any real pressing need for renames, it's just that if they are renamed, this is the form they should take. Liamdavies (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liam, my thoughts were much along the lines of yours. I'm not sure why these two subcats, but not others, were proposed for rename. I'm not necessarily opposed to the move, but it should be a little more comprehensive perhaps, and I wouldn't mind Nick sharing his thoughts on the matter. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, please do not move categories while the CFD you commenced has not even been ongoing for a full day yet. Second, why the move? You've offered no explanation. As for disambiguation, why are you not suggesting consisting disambiguation for this category and the other one you are proposing moving. This isn't just any press building in Toronto, but is the rather the press building for the CNE. Please provide a few details - thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a lot of cats in Category:Exhibition Place with the CNE preface, if the preface is changed, I suggest it should be made "Canadian National Exhibition" to sit in line with the contents of Category:CNE, but that this should be universal for all cats with the CNE preface. Having said that, I don't see any real pressing need for renames, it's just that if they are renamed, this is the form they should take. Liamdavies (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
okokok, thats oversysthematic because there is only one single Ludwigshafen in Germany. So it's not necessary e.g. Würzburg (am Main), Nürnberg (an der Pegnitz), Hamburg (an der Elbe), Bremen (an der Weser) .... too.
it's necessary at Freiburg (im Breisgau), because there is a second Freiburg at Elbe river. It's necessary with Frankfurt (am Main) because there is a second Frankfurt at the Oder river. But if you feel better than do so. --Drdoht (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. There is also the small village Ludwigshafen (Bodensee), today part of Bodman-Ludwigshafen but still having a train station called "Ludwigshafen (Bodensee)". Also, "am Rhein" is not just an arbitrary qualifier but part of the complete official name of the city Ludwigshafen am Rhein. But most importantly all I want is the whole category tree to be consistent. This is not just a question of convenience or optical homogenity, it is necessary for being visible to certain templates or - at least in a number of cases - to human users. --PanchoS (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senseless as every category "Former players of ...." . Commons has not a "Now" and a "Before". Not to mention that such categories should require a high maintenance (at least yearly). No use and no sense to keep them. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)12:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senseless as every category "Former players of ...." . Commons has not a "Now" and a "Before". Not to mention that such categories should require a high maintenance (at least yearly). No use and no sense to keep them. --SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senseless as every category “Former” or “Current players of…”. Commons has not a “Now” and a “Before”. Not to mention that such categories should require a high maintenance (at least yearly). No use and no sense in keeping them. --SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)12:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senseless as every category “Former” or “Current players of…”. Commons has not a “Now” and a “Before”. Not to mention that such categories should require a high maintenance (at least yearly). No use and no sense in keeping them. --SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)12:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senseless as every category “Former” or “Current players of…”. Commons has not a “Now” and a “Before”. Not to mention that such categories should require a high maintenance (at least yearly). No use and no sense in keeping them. --SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)12:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There could be other things in a fruit loaf beside raisins ie sultanas and other dried fruits (and often nuts). Besides the mixed fruit ones, there are also banana loaves (see Category:Banana bread for instance), date loaves etc, which would fall in this category, and not in the "raisin bread" one. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good point, but i think the more common name is Category:Fruit bread, at least based on google hits (not a very scientific approach, i know). Category:Fruit cakes might also be considered as a sub cat of fruit bread/fruit loaf. Actually, that category covers a lot more, so i would propose Category:Fruitcake for the christmas delicacy which is definitely made with some flour, thus is also like a bread. Another example Category:Keks (fruit cakes), again very similar in appearance/purpose to most raisin bread, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
respectfully oppose; "shaped food" is a more ambiguous term, & less consistent with commons' overall category schema of "x___ by x___". it also invites complicated questions of defining what to include/exclude as "shaped food"; & we have plenty of other things to agrue about, already... if we just stay with "food by shape", then don't have to get into disagreements about that.
also; for organizational purposes, it is useful to have foods grouped by shape generally, & integrated into the relevant "shape" categories. there are plently of opportunities to use that for educational purposes.
"food by shape" doesnt allow for individual files, only categories. "shaped food" allows for individual files. however, i do agree its an awkward name. alternatives might include: "food shaped like objects", "food with unusual shapes". PS with "food by shape" we need categories for triangular, round, spherical, square, cubical, cylindrical, hemispherical, otherwise, why does it exist, except for the one category we now have in it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Łukasz Kubot his name? We don't automatically translate everything to English - we simply use the name most commonly-used in the English language. What is he called in English media? Łukasz Kubot? Lukasz Kubot? Lucas Kubot? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lukasz Kubot. The Ł is a pain in the arse for anyone not using a Polish/or langauage keyboard that uses this character, which I would say in the world is a very large percentage, as you can not find the name nor is it his name in English lang sources. The latter is just plain wrong. Flickrworker (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use the English Wiki as standard. It is meant to be English commonname and Łukasz Kubot most definatly is not. Additionally we should not mirror en Wiki as they are factually wrong due to people want to create an International wiki on it. His name is most definitely Lukasz Kubot in English not Łukasz Kubot as per most English language sources. Flickrworker (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to do more than simply claim the English Wikipedia is wrong. We don't change the spelling of the names of people simply because some people decide that certain letters or diacritical marks are a "pain in the arse" (that problem is easily solved by category redirects). While the English Wikipedia is not determinative here, and we come to our own conclusions, you need to do more than simply impugn the motives of the contributors over there. EN WP is usually used as good evidence of accepted English language usage - if it is not good evidence in this case, explain why. More specifically, provide evidence that Lukasz Kubot is used most commonly in the English language. When it comes to people's actual names, we tend to use their actual name unless there is clear and obvious evidence that a different spelling is most commonly used in English (e.g. we have Category:Celine Dion because that's how *she* spells it in English on her albums, in her promotional materials, etc. even though her name is actually Céline Dion). Does Kubot have an English-language website (and, if so, what does it use)? How does Kubot himself spell it on English-language materials? How does his agent spell it? How do the major tennis tournaments spell his name? How does the media in the U.K., the U.S. and other English-speaking countries spell his name? What does Google show for news and web searches in terms of instances of Łukasz Kubot vs. Lukasz Kubot in Eglish-language sources? You need some of this information to show actual usage. I'm not trying to be difficult, and I am not suggesting you are wrong, but we just need more information before ploughing ahead. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Results: Lukasz Kubot 1,220,000 on google, 9,160 results news. Łukasz Kubot 1,190,000 on google, (although if you were to do this yourself you would see that a lot of the pages that it picks up use Lukasz Kubot so the result is inflated and IMHO opinion a lot lower.) 8,520 results on google news. Google news for both searches picks up a lot of Polish media pages which should be discounted as we are meant to for en wiki go with what English Language sources use, so I assume the same applies to commons and names being what predominantly is used in the English press. The International Tennis Federation, the ATP and the Grand Slam tournaments e.g. Wimbledon, US Open etc all use Lukasz Kubot. Own website uses Lukasz Kubot more often than Łukasz Kubot (only places used is the big logo thing and on the profile and copyright (but I assume only on the copyright as he registered it in Polska.)) so in fairness only used once on the website. All other mentions including every single news article uses Lukasz. Flickrworker (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First link also contains "Łukasz", so it would be 513k for Łukasz and 406k for Lukasz, but a lot of "Lukasz Kubot" are just websites with "Łukasz", but "lukasz" in nice url. There's no proof he's named "Lukasz" or he have another name in English speaking countries. Some of websites are using "Lukasz", because they are lazy, some because it's their policy (and our policy is to use English name if such exists - again no proof here), a lot of commenting people writes Lukasz (even Poles who aren't using diacritics), same as they write Barakk Obama - still it's their mistake, not "English name". Correctness of name doesn't depend on google results. It may show just how many websites are wrong. Official site gives a lot of typos like "Lucasz". So why Lukasz, not Lucasz, Lukash, Lucash? Also Lukasz on official is a good variant for marketing purposes and it doesn't change anything in correctness. They also say he's great, as well as other websites. So we could write "Lukasz (Lucasz, in wildness called Łukasz; known as Lukasz the Great)"? You'll find a lot of proofs for "the great" - but proofs of same range as proofs for "Lukasz". Krzysiu (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could just say that popularity, simplification isn't the same as correctness. Other websites could use simpler form, but we are here to use correct forms. Redirect would make it easier for people. There's no reason in simplification for putting in the category, like in Category:Ladybug - ladybug would me much easier to write, wouldn't it? Krzysiu (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the book "Tilings and Patterns" by Grünbaum and Shephard,
In mathematical literature, the words tessellation, paving, mosaic and parquetting are used synonymously or with similar meanings. The German words for tiling are Pflasterung, Felderung, Teilung, Parkettierung and Zerlegung. The French words are pavage, carrelage and dallage. The Russian words are паркетаж, разбиение and замощение.
—Grünbaum, Branko; Shephard, G. C., Tilings and Patterns, p.16
Academic references have priority over wiki-type projects. In mathematics, these two words are synonymous. There may be difference outside of mathematical context that may play role but this has not been shown yet. See also mentioned discussion. — Stannic (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Stannic and I too am horrified to see Wikitionary cited as a reliable source.
One may also recall Grünbaum's Uniform Tilings of 3-space, which addresses certain tessellations also frequently referred to as honeycombs. Mathematically all these terms are quite interchangeable although, as Grünbaum's usage demonstrates, the term "tilings" has come to be favoured as the root class. For another example, observe that mathematicians do not talk of "Penrose tessellations" but rather of "Penrose tilings."
In common usage too the term "tilings" is pretty much universal. Nobody talks of different "tessellations" for their bathroom wall. The term "tessellation" originated in the learned description of Classical era mosaic construction and not in mathematics.
One needs a root or top-level Category, and "Tilings" is the obvious one. Does one then need specialist sub-categories? Well, yes if the sub-category is a sub-class of object, such as tilings of the plane, but not if it is just a synonym. The present unsatisfactory situation both here and on Wikipedia is that editors have been picking and choosing different synonyms in order to distinguish one editor's choice from another without any real attempt at rigour, and selectively citing references to back their claims when contrary references (such as the above quote) also exist. This needs to stop. There is no accepted mathematical distinction between tiling and tessellation, but if one exists in say archaeology or Classical literature then fine, keep the Category, but otherwise let's use the word that English speakers habitually use and get rid of the pseudo-mathematical misunderstandings.
My impression is also that, in mathematical parlance, "tessellation" and "tiling" are synonymous. But "tiling" also has the real-world meaning of covering a surface by physical tiles, so I think keeping the mathematical meaning at "tesselations", as it is now, is helpful in avoiding ambiguity. Many of its subcategories use "tiling" instead of "tessellation", but so what? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Tessellation" also has real-world origins in constructing mosaics. My old Chambers 20th Century dictionary gives only the real-world definition, with a bare and inadequate hint at geometry; "marked out in little squarish areas". So I would suggest that we cannot restrict "tessellation" to its mathematical meaning any more than we can restrict "tiling". I would suggest that using same word consistently throughout the hierarchy of category names would be a better way to reduce confusion. If we wish to split off a dedicated mathematical category then say Category:Mathematical tilings or Category:Tilings (mathematics) would be less ambiguous than the current name. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In earlier discussionit was noted that mathematical tilings should not be separated from real ones, and so categories like "Category:Tilings (geometry)" or "Category:Tilings in geometry" should not be used because all real-world tilings are mathematical too. So if there is need in dedicated mathematical category, then why, and what images would belong there? Or, putting question other way — what images would not belong there? — Stannic (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not synonymous because "Human females" includes females of all ages, whether infants, children, girls, women, etc., whereas "Women by age" would include only adults. However, I see that "Women by age" has been redirected to "Human females by age", and a redirect was also done for the corresponding male categories. Therefore, I think this could be closed. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all sure whether [[Category:Chinese characters tattoos]] might be a better expression to describe the category. Somebody with better English knowledge should decide. sarang♥사랑15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a native English speaker, I think "Chinese character tattoos" sounds better than "Chinese characters tattoos". (Side note: I did consider proposing "Tattoos in Chinese" to match the other Tattoos by language categories, but I decided against it because Chinese characters/kanji/hanzi are also used in the Japanese language and it's impossible to tell from an image like File:Tatuaje4.jpg whether it's meant to be hu3 (Chinese) or tora (Japanese)).--Brainy J (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categories suck as an organizing tool, for many reasons, including: (a) there is no practical way to tell what elements a category has contained in the past; (b) there is no practical way for the contributor who adds or deletes an element to a category to document why the element belongs or doesn't belong.
Consistency is important. As implemented here, there is no overall organizational scheme. Rather we have ad-hoc constellations of organizational schemes, with overlaps and inconsistencies.
Organizational schemes are inherently arbitrary. This is not alwaya recognized. Some proponents strongly feel the organizational schemes they prefer are the obvious and natural organizational scheme. Unfortunately, some proponents are so sure the organizational schemes they prefer are "obvious" that they resent being asked to explain the reasoning behind the schemes they prefer.
Even if, for the sake of argument, a contributor who sees a badly name category, and moves all the elements in that category to what they think is a properly named category, I think it is extremely unhelpful for them to make that change without explanation.
This is supposed to be a cooperative project. So, how should good faith contributors, who have made a good faith attempt to properly classify images they uploaded, expect to learn that someone who felt they used bad category names, had taken all the elements they put in that category, placed them somewhere else, and that the good faith category name they started had been deleted?
Alternatively, the perosn who thought the first category was badly named, could have (a) left a note on the initiator's talk page; (b) initiated a discussion here, at COM:CfD; (c) at least merely turned the initial category into a redirect.
The record shows that in October 2012 I started Category:Reconstruction of the TTC's Union Station, 2012. It was deleted, without anyone showing me the courtesy of informing me. So when I took more pictures of the reconstruction, in 2013. I went looking for the categories I thought I had created. I couldn't find them. I thought I must have imagined starting categories. So I created new good faith categories. I have been taking pictures of the reconstruction for years. I have no idea have many times we have been through this cycle.
I wrote above that organizational schemes are inherently arbitrary. I know for many people this seems highly counter-intuitive. They are wrong -- which is why consistently following established convention is so important. Unfortunately we simply don't have firmly established and consistent convention.
Some decades ago I was a teaching assistant for an introductory computer course. One of my students was a gracious elderly woman. One day she gave me some feedback, over how confusing she found my explanation of opening files "for input" and opening files "for output". She said she finally understood that it was all backward. When I told her we were going to "open a file for input", it meant we were going to take something out of it -- and when we opened a file for output it meant we were going put something into it. She asked me why input and output were named the opposite of what was obvious and logical.
I tried to explain to her why it really made more sense for input and output to be named the way they were conventionally used. She was gracious, but I felt dissatisfied afterward. I realized that my claims were nonsense
Our intellectual lives are full of conventions based on an arbitrary choice. I suggest it is a mistake to forget the arbitrary elements in our conventions. I suggest it is particularly a mistake to forget there are arbitarary elements in out conventions.
I know some people would claim the year should always come first.
Other people would say the most important element should be first in the category name. But, as per above, the decision as to which element is the most important is a judgment call -- not "obvious" but rather a decision with an arbitrary element.
With regard to the argument "inconsistent with parent cats" -- parent cats are in a constant state of flux. Surely valid categories shouldn't be at risk of deletion due to a bad choice of parent categories? Geo Swan (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The church appears to have two names, I created Category:St Peter and St Paul's church, Hoggeston as the category name and Category:Holy_Cross_church,_Hoggeston as a redirect using the name used by one of the photographers as the category. Looking at the sourcing Holy Cross seems be the better sourced name, Though Peter and Paul is used here. If both are indeed correct then I have no strong feelings as to which should be the redirect and which the category. If British-history.ac.uk is now out dated and the church has now reverted to its former name of Holy Cross then I would have no objection to this closing as both names are valid but Holy Cross is the stronger one and Peter and Paul should be the redirect. But the Peter and Paul is only wrong if the material in Britis-history.ac.uk is incorrect (As the photograph was taken in 1998 and Geograph was only started in 2005, the photographer uploaded to Geeograph some years after they took the photograph, so I'd concede the possibility that they took the name from that source rather than whatever was on the sign outside the church in 1998). WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If an image of a certain naval or fishing ship has to be categorised in Wikimedia Commons, these ships are hard to find if the name of the vessel is not found on the image. Most names of naval and fishing ships have only relatively small carved or painted nameplates, hardly to find on images. However: they have large numbers painted on the hull. By obligation. The pennant number and the fishing license number is painted in big letters/numbers on the hull to serve as a quick recognition marker. We have to realise that we are talking about naming categories, not naming ships. You don't find a ship just in a category named by the pennant number or fishing license only .
It has a name too, so also the name is an identifier. But certain shipnames are used many times, also for naval and fishing ships. The easyest way of making a difference was to add a date in the naming system. The English Wikipedia uses the year of launch, a number of other wikipedias use the year of first commisioning or year of completion. As for very old ships the year of launching is seldom mentioned but the date of first commissioning or completion is. The year of first commisioning or completion the best criterium for this international project.
That is the reason why more and more of these ships are categorised: by the indication (pennant number in many cases, Russian ships have no real pennant number) or "fishing license", "shipname" ("ship", "tugboat" or "submarine", "year of completion (or first commissioning for naval ships)", "place of built") when name and year for the vessel are the same). See Category:Ships by pennant number and Category:Fishing vessels by license number.
Assume you are a user who finds an image like this somewhere, outside Wikipedia. You want to find more images. In commons you start looking for "J315" and you find the ship. That is the system. And if you are familiar with pennant numbers, you go to Category:Ships with pennant number 315 and you find the ship. The other way around: You are looking for HMAS Wagga. The redirect brings you immediately to category J315 Wagga (ship, 1942). In case there were more Waga's, you'll find them by year of first commisioning or completion, depending on naval or civil.
According that simple system most naval and fishing ships were categorised. Recategorised categories were always directing to the old categories, so images of ships could be found by different systems. I am not aware of any comment on the system for fishing ships.
But a problem rises with the names of British Commonwealth naval ships (and I assume also for US naval ships). I realise that inclusion of HMS, HMAS etc. prefix is an important British Commonwealth cultural thing. It is unthinkable to refer to British, Australian Canadian etc. warships as anything else but HMS xyz, HMAS xyz etc. I know that. But: It has nothing to do with this international project of Wikimedia Commons. Here is important that images can be found, in an international way.
It is not more than normal than that the local Wikipedia's follow their own standard. But users of the English Wikipedia want to insist of using their local naming system in this international project. A number of them thinks that the name of a naval vessel includes a prefix. In my opinion that is not correct. If you look at the nameplate of a naval vessel or her ships badge, you don't find a prefix. Of course in literature these prefixes are used, independent of the language. But that is not the case here. Prefixes of shipnames like SS, S/S, MS, M/S and so on are widely used in literature, but language dependent and not used in category names in Commons. Unless in the name, as in M/S RHEINLAND.
As prefixes are not part of the name of a ship, civil, naval, fishing or whatsoever, they must not be used in name categories of ships. The can always be found via redirects, if the majority of the users think this is useful. Recategorised categories have such a redirect already. In my view prefixes like HMS, HMAS and so on are to be left out of the name category of a ship.
Besides: Prefixes of US ships change from time to time, as the function of the ship changes. USS XXX becomes USCGXXX where the XXX in the years can change. Ships are just numbered and during a vast period only the pennant number is painted on the ship. In the case of certain ships, such as some LSTs and submarines, they never received a "name" as such, but are known by the pennant number in the absence of anything better, so the pennant is the de facto name. Furthermore pennant numbers can change without any alterations to the ship or its ownership. This is not different from ships known by name. The only problem is, that no system exist like the IMO system, where a hull always keeps the IMO number and the link between the names can be found via the IMO number. We don't have a coupling mechanism. European barges have a simular system by ENI number, European Number of Identification.
If the conclusion of the discussion is, that we leave out all prefixes and the pennant numbers, the category scheme can allow search-by-pennant number easily enough. To use the "Enterprise example" - it could be in categories with names like "ships with pennant number 65", "US Navy ships with hull classification code CVN" and "US Navy ships with hull classification code CVAN". The pennant information for ships that have a name too doesn't need to be in the category name to allow non-experts to use the categories. These categories allow for appropriate searching by people who are unfamiliar with the ships. Remember also, if the only thing a person knows about a photo of a ship is that it has "65" on its side, they cannot ID it from that alone, but need further information.
Summary: Naming of categories of naval and fishing ships is according the same system as for all other ships:
no prefixes, unless they are part of the shipname according the nameplate;
the category name starts with what is painted on the ship, the pennant number, the fishing license number or similar, followed by her shipname;
the number and shipname are followed in brackets by the year of first commissioning or of completion. If not found, any other determinating year like the year of launch;
to make it easier for users, make a redirect if the ship is widely known under her prefix together with her shipname.
Your lengthy message makes it unclear what you are proposing. I can see three elements of information here: The plain name of the ship (stripped of any prefix), the prefix and a classification number (whether that's IMO, Fishing registration, military pennant, or anything else). There are three options I can see here (each with merits):
Use the plain name only
Use the prefix plus the plain name
Use the classification number plus the plain name
My personal preference for the English-speaking navies is 2, 1, 3. These navies are exceptional, as they are referred to with the same prefix in many languages and those prefixes are much more heavily used.
The prefixes of the Commonwealth and US Navies are different to those of other navies (and civilians). The key difference is they are language independent and are invariably used when discussing these ships - they aren't used in English only. These Dutch, German, French, Italian press releases, this Russian - the claim HMS/USS/HMAS/... is somehow language dependent is flat wrong. In contrast to the Anglo-American navies, prefixes are not used in the same consistent way by European navies. Because of the dominance of the English-speaking navies in NATO, English-style prefixes (like HMNLS or worse still FS) were adopted for reporting purposes in English, but this didn't affect usage in the navies own language. Likewise, civilian ships are generally known without their prefix - the ship that hit an iceberg in 1912 is usually known as just 'the Titanic'. This means there is a strong case for using USS, HMS, etc.
If information is not part of the subject's name it shouldn't be used as a category name (unless used for disambiguation, in commas or parentheses). Thie means pennant numbers on military ships should not be used as part of the category name either, unless in brackets, as they are not the ship's name in any way shape or form. They are used to identify the ship, and its trivial to work out the name which goes with the number. The fact its written on the side of the ship in big characters is besides the point. Its no more part of a ship's name, than the large legible letters on the side of this ship - or its IMO number. In all cases, a minimum level of research by the uploader is reasonable to expect.
Furthermore, pennant numbers change and may not match the number on the ships hull. HMS Cavalier (R73) had two distinct numbers (R73 and D73) in service. To make things worse the number on the hull, is not the identifying code in all navies. The w:pennant number#international pennant numbers used by many nations is the full identifying code of the ship and is painted on the hull. In the equivalent systems of the US Navy, RCN and RAN, only the number is. The full code (eg DDG-73) is unambiguously the correct code to use for USS Decatur, and like all US Navy ships, is incorporated into the ship's badge. Only 73 is painted on the hull, yet the ship is always without exception referred to as DDG-73 when the code is used, and this is never shorted to 73, ever.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what? We don't use category names for the convenience of our uploaders, but what is actually correct. Calling that ship "73 Decatur" would just be a complete fabrication, no better than calling commercial ships - like my example above "Britanny Ferries Pont-Aven" or "9268708 Pont-Aven". Calling it plain "Decatur" is something I'd disagree with but it isn't wholly unreasonable name.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We use category names for ... what is actually correct - provided there is a "correct" name.
However, our choice of category names needs also take into account what kind of name(s) image-users will look/search for, as the true purpose of categorization is to make our media findable — just as a general remark, as I have no knowledge in ship-names. --Túrelio (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. Ships like place have names, and may have codes associated with them, the distinction between name and code is clear enough. Its arguable if the prefix is part of the name or not. But the pennant is clearly and emphatically not part of the name. Calling that ship "73 Decatur" is something contrived and not used anywhere else. Compare Google searches for Decatur ship, "USS Decatur", "73 Decatur". Piling non-name information at the front, due to limitations of Wikimedia's search engine and HotCat isn't the right approach is it?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm trying to get across here is its not the prefix that bothers me. Its the addition of the pennant (or even worse partial pennant) that is the real issue. "Decatur (ship, 1998)" is a much more palatable option than "73 Decatur (ship, 1998)". By contrast the issue with prefix is much more minor. And comparing warships to fishing boats is comparing chalk to cheese...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "prefixes are not part of the name" of British Commonwealth-style and US warships is ill-informed, and totally wrong. As evidence, please see the list of historic ship names maintained by the Royal Australian Navy [1], the current ship names used by the Royal Navy [2], Royal Canadian Navy [3] and Royal New Zealand Navy [4] as well as the the various official lists of active US Navy warships available via [5]. Books, magazines and news reports also follow this practice with very few exceptions. As demonstrated by these websites, the prefixes are actually part of the common way of referring to the ships, and removing them from the categorizations makes no sense, and would hinder the ability of people to access images of these ships. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A pedantic point, but important, I think, is that USN hull numbers are not pennant numbers as used elsewhere in the world and generally only change when a ship's role is changed or its original classification is changed (like when DLGs were renamed as CGs in the 1970s). Pennant numbers, especially early in the 20th century could, and did change at the drop of a hat. I much prefer year of launch for those ships that use pennant numbers as that's a stable datum. So I would reject any attempt to put pennant numbers up front. IMO, it should run (prefix) (name) (hull number/year of launch/pennant number).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are many movies, TV series, books, etc. based on military ships, so they have the same name, I'd prefer all categories to use the format "name (ship, year)". The pennant can be added in the category description, so they can be found when searching for this number in the Category namespace. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly fishing boats and Naval vessel are two completely different subjects what works for one does not necessarily translate or relate to the other the actual naming of each has no relation to each other in the wider world, even within individual countries.
the significance of prefix of HMS, HMAS, HMNZS etc in the name of naval vessels is paramount one only has to google the likes of HMAS Sydney[6] to see it usage, it also goes beyond the time it sailed see HMAS Sydney memorial[7] to refer to the HMAS Sydney and every person looking for HMAS Sydney photographs will be searching for HMAS Sydney, also all our GLAM partners have an expectation that we will make these images readily available they dont hide their photographs under pennant numbers or composite names that nobody would search for. By all means have pennant number categories, as someone working with Loyyds ships registry will know what these and be able to search by them. Every vessel and facility of the Australian Navy uses the HMAS prefix in its title being HMAS Sydney, HMAS Cerbrus, HMAS Stirling so categorising using the name is consistant with naming policy, if fact a part of our strict renaming policy is for consistancy.
Now lets look at Fishing boats see Fishing Boat Harbour all of these fishing boats have their name clearly displayed, and their license number is in a yellow box midships on the hull, some also have a prefix in their name but as a group they have no consistancy even though each of the boats are part of Kailis fleet of trawler and that while Kailis may name for consistancy I cant see it, nor would I expect the naming to continue with ownership changes so the use of license number or hull number makes sense as that the constant.
I have some experience in categorising images of ships in Commons, more than 100.000, I assume. You are right with these mentioned vessels. But with most of them you cannot read the name and have to find it via the number. I spent much time to find the name of each ship, as even the licenses are given to different ships over the years. So it helps very much to include a year in the category name. As I found out for old ships via the year of completion is the best way of categorising. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
as explain for Naval vessel I Oppose the removal of the HMAS foo categories from images as its consistant and what real people will be looking for, its also culturally significant, extends beyond just the vessel an has interrelationships with other names, has historical importance and is something that our GLAM partners also use to identify these vessels. For fishing vessels hull/license numbers are the only constant but I again see no reason why the vessels name cant itself be categorised as its a feature of the vessel and from the photograph something thats readily identifiable. What hasnt been demonstrated is that a composite name that has the hull number included has any relationships to what people actually understand, and actually search for, but it does make a useful method to disambiguate names for non-naval vessels to which year of commissioning isnt common knowledge. Gnangarra01:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I try to make clear that my intention is to make it as easy as possible for any user to find images of certain ships in Commons. My statement is that incorporating the identifying number (any), that is in most cases largely painted on a ship to identify her, in a category name makes it work. We have to pass cultural feelings, I am afraid. As stated in the summary: to make it even easier for users, make a redirect if the ship is widely known under her prefix together with her shipname. That is what I do for recategorised ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is you are looking at it backwards. Category names are there to help people find images of the subject they are after, not make it easier to upload images of something (when you may not know its identity). Names should be what people might actually look for - I might come here looking for a frigate "knowing" its called USS Decatur. There will be a few choices, but the date and pennant will guide me to the one I want (the prefix makes it easier, but I'd find without it). I will not be looking for "73 Decatur" because the ship is not called that ever.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problam at all if images of any ship are uploaded with a category name that is not in line with the described system. We still have a lot of them nowadays. If we get a consensus they will be recategorised in line and get a redirect. It is not my intention to do that by bot, automatically. So it will take a few years to make the changes. After my holidays I found more than 200 ships in Category:Ships and also these ships will be categorised as much as possible by name in the coming time. In Dutch we have an expression that says: "Cologne and Aachen are not built in a day". --Stunteltje (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the system calls for an artificial construct used nowhere else. If you think "73 Decatur" is easier to find when uploading pics of that ship, then that should redirect TO a category name useful for people looking for images of it (who will know the name, but not know the number - they don't have an image). As opposed to a redirect FROM a useful and valid name.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If hull numbers are so well knowm then the category:73 Decatur should actualy just be category:73 and every one would know exactly what that is, and we just add the incidental ship name in the description.
A possibly dummy note: in case consensus goes for minimal category-names (i.e., without prefix, pennant or whatever), it is always possible to put additional identifying information simply into the respective category description. AFAIK, the MW-search does also use this information. --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is proposal is to apply what was a decision to drop the prefix over renaming of dutch vessels with the change in prefix due to a change in the head of state and then apply that to everybody else, but HM doesnt change for Commonwealth countries even when the head state changes between His Majesty & Her Majesty as evident by its continued use for over 300 years. Gnangarra06:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is that HMS/HMAS/HMCS is just not part of the name of the vessel. It is a prefix and a matter of culture. In literature it is unthinkable to refer to British, Australian Canadian etc. warships as anything else but HMS xyz, HMAS xyz etc. No problem at all. But here in this international project we have to use the name of the vessel to categorise her.
I can live with leaving out all prefixes with (pennant or similar) numbers for naval vessels and - as suggested by Túrelio - put additional identifying information simply into the respective category description. For the ships with such a prefix it can be done by bot, I assume. That gives:
Summary for naval ships: Naming of categories is according the same system as for all other ships:
no prefixes, unless they are part of the shipname according the nameplate;
the shipname followed in brackets by the year of first commissioning or of completion. If not found, any other determinating year like the year of launch;
So what you acknowledge is its unthinkable to refer to Australian , British, New Zealand, etc naval ships as anything but with the HM prefix, therefore as it unthinkable to refer to these ships as anything but its imperative that Commons being an International project must lead the way in categorise these vessel by something else. Gnangarra10:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion suggests a WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of one user, and seems to smack of a suggestion that needs far more consideration than an on-going argument with one or two other editors here. It needs a much wider discussion, with considerable input by others, and not the few who are discussing here sats (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Stunteltje, it's a shame that you've paid no attention to the editors pointing out the major problems with your proposal, and are sticking to miss-analysis of a handful of photos to support your position. Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shame, indeed, but just that no other than only a few users out of the same group are taking part in this discussion. I asked input from Meta, but that will take time. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Meta) Discussion in Commons lacks international comments. You clearly want to push though your category ideals by selective quotes with no diffs (nor permission from the contributors quoted out of context), no link to the discussion, and Australia may be part of the British Monarchy, but we're Australian and not British (last time I looked, we had our own Government (not British BTW) and I had an Australian passport). Bidgee (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In stead of arguing ad hominem, you all better do some homework:
With the ritual words “I name this ship Protector. May God bless her and all who sail in her.” Beverly Mathews, the wife of Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews (the MOD’s Chief of Materiel – Fleet) and now the sponsor of HMS Protector, did officially name the new (interim, at least for now) Ice Patrol Ship of the Royal Navy.
"I name this ship Astute. May God bless her and all who sail in her," she said, before pulling a lever to break the beer bottle against the submarine's hull.
God bless Maryborough. Her hands trembled a little but Marilyn Burgess took the scissors and firmly cut the ribbon moments after she had pronounced the words, “I name this ship Maryborough, may God bless her and all who sail in her.”
PUKAKI, the third of the four Inshore Patrol Vessels built entirely in New Zealand by Tenix in Whangarei, was launched in Whangarei Harbour on Tuesday 6 May. PUKAKI was formally named on Saturday, 10 May, and with these words “I name this ship PUKAKI and may god bless her and all who sail in her”, Launch Lady Mrs Alison Roxburgh cut the ribbon releasing the champagne bottle on to PUKAKI’s bow. This is another significant step under Project Protector. The first ship, the Multi-role Vessel, HMNZS CANTERBURY, was commissioned into the Navy in June 2007. The first Offshore Patrol Vessel, OTAGO, was launched in Williamstown in November 2006 and sister ship, WELLINGTON, was welcomed into the RNZN fleet on June 2010.
There to meet the crew when they came alongside were their own Officer Commanding, the OCs of the local units, the Mayor of Langebaan, and other local dignitaries, while SAS Flamingo had made a charming effort at decorating the jetty and giving a welcoming party for their arrival. After a few speeches, Cdr Keith Meyer, the OC of SAS Flamingo, asked Mrs Susan van Loggerenberg, the wife of the Officer Commanding the Military Academy, to christen the ship. This she graciously consented to do and the highlight of the week was reached when, in a clear voice, she pronounced, 'I name this ship P1558. May God bless her and all who sail in her' - the traditional prayer. With one clean swing of a heavy chipping hammer, she thereupon broke a bottle of champagne over the ship's bows. In actual fact the ship also received the unofficial name of Susan in keeping with the tradition at SAS Flamingo to name all their launches rather than just using the prosaic numbers allocated to them by the Navy. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page provided on Pukari is actually titled "HMNZS PUKAKI - P3568".... Also, Stunteltje has confused the naming ceremony of the vessels with their commissioning ceremony. The naming ceremony is held when the ship is still under construction, and the vessel ends up being officially designated something like "NUSHIP Maryborough" in the Royal Australian Navy (which is what the link Stunteltje provided above actually calls the ship at this point) as it is not yet part of the Navy, and is typically still the property of its builder. When the ship is complete and accepted into service and her crew have completed their initial training a commissioning ceremony is held in which the "HMAS" prefix is formally added, and is then consistently used (though popular media and most works of history tend to add the "HMAS" as soon as the naming ceremony is held). Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I haven't found yet a script of commisioning a New Zealand ship, but have found one of the US naval ship Ospray. Please read the commisioning script of the Ospray: http://www.history.navy.mil/shiphist/o/osprey/comm.pdf and pay attention to the naming on page 7: "AS DIRECTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AND FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I HEREBY PLACE THE UNITED STATES SHIP OSPREY EN COMMISSION. GOD BLESS AND GODSPEED TO ALL WHO SAIL IN HER." No prefix in the name, even in US naval ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Via an answer from the Australian ambassy in The Hague I got an answer form the Historic Naval Ships Association. I think an answer from specialists. From: DWinkler@navyhistory.org, CC: CCreekman@navyhistory.org, Sent: 8/27/2013 11:37:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Subj: RE: Feedback Form:
In the USN the ship is named and gets the USS at the time of commissioning and loses the USS at decomm. But USS does not become part of the name hence only the name is italicized: USS Indianapolis.
and J. Nilsson, HNSA added:
An answer regarding US ships. I would presume the same holds true for Australian ships.
Hope to receive another specialist answer soon. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One area where Commons diverges from WP practice is biological taxons. In that case, animals may have multiple common names (even in 1 language), and can be very different between languages. That's not true with the ships in question here, the US Navy ship designated CVN-68 is normally called "USS Nimitz" in most languages.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I received an answer from two naval specialists:
Regarding your email below, the simple answer to your question is that yes, the prefix 'HMAS' does become part of the ship's name upon commissioning. However, the HMAS prefix does not need to be used every time that ship is referred to. For instance, the convention in the Royal Australian Navy is to include the HMAS prefix the first time a particular ship is mentioned, but not anytime thereafter. So in your example, we would initially refer to HMAS Maryborough, and then simply refer to her as Maryborough thereafter. Similarly, the HMAS prefix is dropped after a ship decommissions.
I hope that this helps.
Kind regards,
Mr Petar Djokovic, Navy History Officer, Naval History Section, Sea Power Centre - Australia, 1A Dairy Road, Fyshwick, Department of Defence, PO Box 7942, CANBERRA BC ACT 2610
and another today from his counterpart in the Dutch ministery of Defence, Dr. A.A. (Alan) Lemmers, Nederlands Instituut voor Militaire Historie:
Het schip krijgt zijn Koninklijke prefix op het moment van indienststelling: in de tijd tussen de doop en de indienststelling wordt de naam zonder prefix gebezigd. Na de laatste uitdienststelling vervalt meteen ook de prefix (NB logement- en wachtschepen konden vroeger nog onder militair commando staan en hun prefix behouden, maar de tijd van logementschepen is voorbij) – dit alles conform de Circulaire Zeemacht 1569cc artikel 32. Zo mag bijvoorbeeld het museumschip de Tonijn (de driecilinder onderzeeboot van het Marinbemuseum in Den Helder) niet langer de prefix voeren. In het verleden verloor het schip in periodes van tijdelijke uitdienststelling (voor onderhoud e.d.) ook telkens tijdelijk zijn prefix, maar tegenwoordig doet men dat anders en blijft de prefix van kracht. (informatie van CZSK)
In de maritiem-historische literatuur worden de spellingsregels van de circulaire niet slaafs overgenomen. Voor de leesbaarheid van een tekst is het daar al sinds jaar en dag gewoonte de naam van een schip (marine of koopvaardij) cursief weer te geven en niet in hoofdletters. In teksten wordt het prefix Hr.Ms. (of tegenwoordig Zr.Ms.) wel conform de marineregels gehanteerd, tenzij de auteur niet van de conventie op de hoogte is, maar daar zou een eindredacteur op moeten letten. Meestal wordt de prefix de eerste keer dat de naam van een marineschip wordt vermeld conform de regels gebruikt, daarna kan hij in dezelfde tekst weggelaten worden, al kan hij ook opnieuw gebruikt worden: de keuze is aan de auteur. Bij foto-onderschriften gebruiken wij de prefix altijd, tenzij ook daar de naam twee of meer keer wordt genoemd.
Keep There is only one object now, but the practice of fake polishing is common. So other people could take pictures of other objects of the same kind in the future. Lionel Allorge (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not find any other images on the commons of objects with faux polishing. I did, however, create the category for Stone ashtrays, as there were 2 other stone ashtrays portrayed. So my argument is to delete this category, not merge or rename. If we have other objects with fake/faux polishing, a broader category would make sense, but not this specific. the closest i could get was Category:Faux painting, which has a few images. I tried keywords "coating" and "polish(ing)", couldnt find more. also have Category:Coatings.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This ashtray is made from Gypsum Alabaster, the softer variety of alabaster, which can be cut by a fingernail. i have another example of this type of ashtray. coating this stone is a common practice in Italy. still dont know what the practice is called. a resin coating?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(A) "Members of Landtag of (state)" - that´s status quo, but it makes a strange mix of German and English words, so I understand the wish to change it
[B) "Mitglieder des (name of parliament in German)" - that´s the all-German solution that has been newly implemented for two states. For german users, this is the most logical and recognizable option, considering the whole string to be a title and therefore a proper name
(C) "Members of (name of parliament in German)" - that´s a mix resulting from the "Members of"-element of the general tree and the name of the parliament seen as a proper name that is not translated according to commons´ rules
(D) "Members of the state parliament of (state name in english)" - that´s all-English and ignores the actual name of the parliament, but would be easy to understand for international users
Die Verwendung der Bezeichnung "Mitglieder des ...." stellt eine amtliche Bezeichnung dar, die nicht verändert werden kann. Dies stellt einen Eigennamen dar. Die Ausnahmeregel ist daher möglich. --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ist der Prime Minister eigentlich der Premierminister oder der Ministerpräsident? Wie soll man "Regierender Bürgermeister von Berlin" oder "Hamburgische Bürgerschaft" übersetzen, das sind ebenso Landesparlamente wie der Bayerische Landtag (nicht jedoch der Landtag von Bayern oder der Landtag in Bayern, beides ist ausdrücklich als Name verboten und ausgeschlossen). MdL ist in Deutschland ein Eigenname, es heißt "Mitglied des Landtages" und nichts Anderes. Alles dieses sind Eigennamen und sind somit als Ausnahme anzusehen. Einen "Landtag of lower saxonia" gibt es nicht und hat es nie gegeben. Diese Vermischeung von Deutsch und Englisch ist außerdem höchst albern. --Ralf Roleček09:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um es klarzustellen: Hier ist niemand gezwungen Englisch zu sprechen... Bezüglich der Diskussion: Ich stimme Ralf und Olaf zu. Es handelt sich hierbei um einen Eigennamen und somit sollte eine Ausnahmeregelung möglich sein. LG--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Als Anleger der bisherigen Kategorien: Mein Herz hängt nicht an den Namen. Wichtig ist, dass es danach einheitlich ist. Wenn die Variante B gewählt wird, bitte aber eine Kat-Weiterleitung einer englischen Schreibweise (vorzugsweise Variante D) hinzufügen. Ich habe die Denglische Variante gewählt, da die Landtagsbezeichnung Eigenname ist, "Mitglied" aber nicht. Aber die Kritik, dass die Mix-Variante sowohl für Deutschsprachige als auch für Englischsprachige unbefriedigend ist, kann ich teilen. Daher wäre für mich Variante B kombiniert mit Weiterleitung von D die Beste. Dann wäre noch zu klären, wie wir die Konsistenz zu den Landtagsnamen hinbekommen. Category:Landtags of Germany scheint mir da nicht optimal.--Karsten11 (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some categories in Category:Céret use French names while some ones use Catalan names, as very often happens in bilingual zones all over the world. Commons policy is to keep names in English, but here I don't find anything to translate since it is a proper name - although some users enforce the "English only" policy far beyond common sense, translating proper names.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Céret. The most common name used is the one in French : "Fontaine des Neuf Jets". I never saw the name "Font dels Nou Brolladors". The catalan name used in Céret is "Font dels Nou Raigs". I perfectly understand the bilingual problem, but I think names for all categories in one place should be in the same language. Considering French is the only official language in France, it should be in French (even though I wish Catalan could have the same status). This is not against catalan, but just to have a coherent and consistent classification of categories. You cannot have two third in French and the other bit in Catalan, in my opinion. Culex (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, we should rename the current category to "Font dels Nou Raigs". Second, regarding which term is more used, the French one or the Catalan one, I've done a google search of "Font dels Nou raigs" with 3490 results, and "Fontaine des Neuf Jets" with 7850 results. This goes in favour of what Culex suggests. By the way, Catalan may not be not official in France, but it is official in Perpignan! --Jordiferrer (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The French state recognizing this fountain as a monument was given an official name, "Fontaine publique des Nou Raigts." He combined the two languages and must be the winning name. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Archaeodontosaurus. I think you refer to the name appearing on the French Monuments historiques Mérimée database, here. There is no official names for monuments in France, although I agree the ones used by Mérimée are often a good start when you have to chose one. Furthermore, the name used on Mérimée dates back to 1910, with the old catalan spelling, not used anymore (raigt is now raig in normalized spelling). This can be verified on the street sign of which I took a photograph. I keep thinking that mixing the 2 languages is not a good idea and that all monuments should be in the same language. Culex (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need a reference system; for historical monument in France is the Base Mérimée. This page has been updated on 2014/01/10. For any dispute you can write here [mediatheque.dapa@culture.gouv.fr]. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above (and as you also said yourself), Mérimée is useful as a reference for choosing a name. But in no way doest it have any official status in the form of names for monuments, furthermore when it is full of mistakes concerning local names in regional languages. Even though the page was updated in 2010, the name shown is still the one from 1910 and not used anymore (at least since the 1930s). Culex (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go with the wider term "turf". "Sod" is a special term really restricted to Ireland (not Iceland). OK, and the US I see. Turf sounds more natural to me. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That requires changing the our category tree (we have a bunch of "sod house" categories, and a parent category for "sod buildings", but this is the only one for turf houses). But we should change it if it is wrong. While what sounds natural to someone is not a compelling reason for moving all of the categories, the issue you pointed out about turf houses being a more universal term than sod houses is a very good reason. Where did you find that information? Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the English sources I've seen discussing the Icelandic examples refer to them as "turf houses", so I think Category:Icelandic turf houses is correctly named, and Category:Sod houses of Iceland should be merged into it. No need for excessive consistency throughout the category tree IMO. I have no great objection to renaming it Category:Turf houses of Iceland if others prefer that wording.
Actually, consistency in category naming is incredibly important here on the Commons. 4,000,000+ files were uploaded last year alone, and the task of categorization is overwhelming enough without people using different words for categories that cover the same thing. It's one thing if a turf house is something different than a sod house, but otherwise all the categories should use the same word if such words are widely understood to be the same thing. While a google search shows that turf houses seem to be most common expression for such houses in Iceland, the term sod houses seems to be used a lot too, which seems to demonstrate that either term is well understood. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, from a web search I can see many people calling the Icelandic examples sod houses. However so far I have not come across any from Iceland, or even outside North America. So part of the issue here is probably trans-Atlantic differences in English usage, but I think it also goes beyond that.
I'm no expert on sod/turf houses, but I understand from this World Heritage submission that Icelandic (and perhaps Faroese) turf houses do have several features that tend to distinguish them from from sod/turf houses elsewhere. They were reasonably permanent structures (requiring rebuilding after 30-70 years) and their use was not confined to the poorer members of society. Many, especially those with wealthier owners, would have an interior wooden structure that could be quite elaborate. I gather this differs from the temporary, last-resort nature of sod houses on the American Great Plains, for instance. The linkages between adjacent turf houses (e.g. in the passageway-farmhouse (gangabær) and gabled-farm (burstabær) styles) are also distinctive. I feel these differences would justify reflecting local usage in our category names, but I don't do much categorisation work on Commons, and I'm a native English speaker, so maybe I'm failing to appreciate the problems of using two words for much the same thing. I've said my piece; I'll now leave it to others to decide. --Avenue (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow it never occurred to me, but it may in fact be an en:WP:ENGVAR issue, as you suggest. Interesting stuff you found on the distinction between sod and turf houses. The problem with using two words is having thousands of users categorizing 4,000,000+ new images a year - ensuring proper categorization is bad enough without using different words for the same thing. However, if there are distinctions between the two things (even subtle ones), then we can make do with category redirects. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Sorry for the slow reply. I'm not frequently active here myself.
I think the last comments from me and Skeezix1000 had almost settled the issue. I noted a distinction between the meanings of "sod house" and "turf house", at least as far as the latter is used in an Icelandic (or more broadly Scandinavian?) context. Skeezix1000 seemed happy with using different words to reflect such a distinction, along with category redirects. So I think we were close to agreeing to merge Category:Sod houses of Iceland into Category:Icelandic turf houses.
I think we should settle on either "turf" (my preference) or "sod", and merge or rename categories to make all the Icelandic ones consistent (also leaving category redirects in place from the alternative name to help people find these categories). --Avenue (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hotels here are grouped by chain / brand, not by owner. This is a useful category, but inappropriately named, as most individual hotels would be owned by real estate funds or local owners who are not related to the hotel chain other than by the franchise / management contract for said property. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed exactly, but I'm not 100% sure either. en:InterContinental Hong Kong seems to be part of the InterContinental hotel chain, but is apparently owned by someone else. Is Category:Accor hotels a chain, even though they don't have any hotels named Accor (but they do own other hotel chains like Category:Hotel Ibis and Category:Novotels? There are actually a lot of weird examples like this if you look through the list. Should a number of different and differently named hotels that happen to be owned by the same company necessarily be considered a chain? I'm not so sure. A lot of the categories in Category:Hotels by owner are certainly chains, so I've copied them there. Perhaps some should actually be moved. Or perhaps Category:Hotels by brand would be better than Category:Hotel chains anyway? Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Most all of the contents of this category are belong in Category:Hotel chains, not this index category. The only categories that should be found here are "Hotels of owner" or "owner hotels". All others should be moved to Category:Hotels or Category:Hotel chains as appropriate and if there is nothing left, this category should be deleted. @Themightyquill: you are right, if Category:Accor hotels existed, it would belong here, though not sure such a grouping would be valuable, as you noted. Josh (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree hotel industry was divided between ownership and manager, so Hotels by owner, does it means hotel building by owner or hotel building by the brand or hotel building by the operator (note, operator can use licensed/franchised brand)? In the current content of the cat, it seem overlap with Category:Hotel chains. Matthew hk (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: , for InterContinental Hong Kong, the building structure was owned by New World Development and the building structure was used by multiple brands. Zh-wiki article is full of unsoucrced statements, but it seem showing InterContinental did acquired the building structure as well as managing it. However, it will soon renamed back to Regent Hongkong (or some sort). Matthew hk (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several years ago, all of the Category:Aerial views of (place) categories were moved across the board to Category:Aerial photographs of (place). At the time, I remember thinking that it was a bit shortsighted, because it didn't take into account the small number of non-photographic (i.e drawings, paintings, etc.) "aerial" images we have in our collection (mostly from the 19th century and before). However, what's done is done. With all that water under the bridge, I would say the following:
If we are going to revisit that earlier decision, it should be done at a high level, not in the context of a CFD over one subcat pertaining to one city.
When one creates a Category:Aerial views of (place) category when Category:Aerial photographs of (place) already exists, you end up with aerial photographs randomly categorized in both (as you do here, where Category:Aerial views of New York City and Category:Aerial photographs of New York City are both full of photos, and do nothing but duplicate one another, and bizarrely are subcats of one another - creating an endless loop of bad categorization). No matter how many times an editor wanders by and tries to clean up the situation, photos will again inevitably get placed in both categories. It will always be a mess.
All right; views from above may be photos or something else, and also may be as seen from tower, flying machine, or human imagination. That suggests to my mind Category:Views from above or similar name, with four subcats. One is for photos, and three are assorted by vantage. Category:Photographs from above would have subcats for aerial and towers, and of course all would be interwoven with local cats. Perhaps we can figure out a better name than "from above" but in any case we'll have to carry the discussion to a high place in the category tree. Hmm, I wrote this without looking at the treetops. Must look to see whether the problem was already solved there and merely failed to tinkle down to our little seaside settlement. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Over a year ago we had this discussion, most of which is beside the point as to my initial objection to the category. A view from a tall building is not "aerial"; most of the files categorized here belong in Category:Aerial photographs of New York City or one of its other subcats. Can we please clean up this part of the category tree? - Jmabel ! talk03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I don't think there is any likelihood of those categories here accumulating a bunch of painted street views or such; certainly hasn't happened in the cities where we've done it that way. - Jmabel ! talk15:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So everything in the "Aerial views" cat is supposed to be in the "Aerial photographs" cat now? Is this happening everywhere else? For the record, I realize there are views that are more specific, and I've created some more specific categories for those views, because the standard "views" cat got too crowded. But if there are some that belong in the more generic category, whether "views" or "photographs," they should be left there. In the meantime, I'll move some of the now 49 pics to the new category, because a German man has a lot of new ones that were uploaded from panoramio recently. ----DanTD (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we have to be sure that some of these views are specifically from buildings. As far as I can tell though, there are still files with categories that need to be moved to one or the other. ----DanTD (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support (as creator of category): Sure. Can't remember why I created the category, but it was possible I was unaware of the existence of "Category:Engraved portraits". However, I'm not sure whether it is necessary to have both "Engraved portraits" and "Engravings of people". What's the difference – is "Engraved portraits" only for portraits of specific individuals or groups of people, while "Engravings of people" is for generic depictions of a number of people who are not individually identified? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–19:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It took me a while to find this category, but it is a much-needed parent category for fashion plate categories. They aren't portraits, so they fit perfectly on the tree here, and they need to be here, IMO. Perhaps other categories of non-portrait engravings of illustrations of people will show up. I can think of some others already: a lot of illustrations from the Illustrated London News, illustrations from books, and all those illustrations of characters and scenes which aren't portraits (but many of them have been categorized there probably because this category was unknown). I will add some catseealsos and see what else I can find, and recategorize the files here appropriately. Further discussion is always welcome. Laura1822 (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been having a stroll through the categories for Illustrations and they are a sprawling, often redundant, Mess. I see what you mean about this category being slightly redundant, but I think it's only a tiny piece of what needs doing, which is a major overhaul to collect illustrations of scenes from literature or stories into one place. It's big. I'll put it on my list, but who knows when I'll get to it. Granted, this is only tangentially related to this category proposal, but ultimately the kind of illustrations I'm thinking of would be a subcategory of this one (like fashion plates are), or at least parallel to it. Rambling now, sorry, but I'm staring down into this deep, chaotic rabbit hole of subjects crying out to be organized coherently. . . . Laura1822 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Laura1822, Jacklee, and Oursana: Perhaps very true. Illustrations are not a "media type" per se, but instead they are "images"/"graphics" (see that discussion) which are defined by their intended purpose. What makes it an illustration is that it is intended to accompany non-visual information. In some common usage the term can be conflated with "drawing" or "image", and while indeed many illustrations are drawings, that is seperate from its purpose which is what makes it an illustration. A drawing not used to accompany non-visual information is not an illustration. Josh (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the non-paralympic games have more events than the paralympic ones, then there might be venues used by only the non-paralympic ones: would we want those venues categorized under both games? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disagreement over whether this category should contain only other categories or all the (many) images of library building exteriors. JesseW (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to provide external views of libraries. This can work either way:
By including images directly into this category or by adding the images first in a library specific "external views" category and then including this category here as a subcategory.
My concern with the first approach is as set out on my talk page discussion with Jesse (linked to above). I worry that the first solution will not make things easier in the long run. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please state your opinion here (the discussion has already been removed from your user talk page, so I had to check your archive). Decisoins like this should be made on the talk page or here (CfD), not on individual people's user talk pages. To try to excerpt, it seems your main point is, "Of all of our library photos on Commons, 90%+ are of exteriors (I'm being conservative - I suspect the % is probably higher).", so this is essentially duplicative of Category:Libraries. I have not tried to estimate this ratio myself. Superm401 - Talk06:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is whether this category should contain only categories, I think that files are allowed; if we wanted categories only, the category should be named "Exteriors of library buildings by library" and be treated as a metacategory.
Whether we should have a category for exteriors at all, with the idea being that files showing exteriors could go in the main category (in this case, Category:Libraries), is a different question. I think it's helpful where there is a very large number of files for an exterior, or when the exterior images are subcategorized (such as by different sides of the building or by notable details). If there is a large number of exterior images of a building and they're all in the main category, then non-exterior images could get "lost" among the exterior ones. Of course, having separate exterior categories for these cases could lead to creating them for cases that don't really need them. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6, Superm401, Skeezix1000, Docu, and JesseW: I agree there is no restriction on placing files in this category. If an appropriate sub-category for a file which depicts the exterior of a library building, then indeed it must be placed here. I would propose that sub categories for specific libraries all be consistently named "Category:Exterior of Library" (with Library matching the main category name for that specific library). These can be grouped in a meta-cat Category:Exteriors of library buildings by library if so desired. Josh (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new category is fine, but having it doesn't seem to address whether files should be allowed in the parent. Are they to be allowed, or should a subcategory be created even for single files? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have entirely forgotten the context of this discussion, and I was neutral on it when it started over six years ago -- so ... I'm still neutral. :-) FYI, the main partisan of one side, Skeezix1000, has not been active since Feb 2016 (3 years ago); so we can probably do whatever whoever is left wants. :-) JesseW (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support closing discussion. I think it is okay to have images in the category but if there are many of the same library they can be put in a sub category. --MGA73 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done In the no-FOP-in-Belgium discussion, it should be the files to be deleted, not the categories. Moreover, these categories don't tell anything about the no-FOP-status. Henxter (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - 
Done - orphanized category and moved to category:FC Internazionale Milano. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support --Passerose (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose / 
Category:Breads to Category:Bread. I think "Breads" should be redirected "Category:Breads by name" (plural) rather than to "Bread". Plural as we're talking specific, countable, distinguishable types of bread. However, I can see trouble where things like "Category:Wheat bread" should not appear in "by name" (IMO), as it is a broad category of breads, but you can argue it is the name of a bread.
Category:Breads by country > Category:Bread by country. I think we are looking at specific, countable, distinguishable types of bread by country in this category..jpg)
. You clearly want to push though your category ideals by selective quotes with no diffs (nor permission from the contributors quoted out of context), no link to the discussion, and Australia may be part of the British Monarchy, but we're Australian and not British (last time I looked, we had our own Government (not British BTW) and I had an Australian passport). Bidgee (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
