Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08

This page is for open CFD discussions started in August 2017.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/08.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2017-08.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache

Summary of open discussions

Current requests

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:Male names

and Category:Female names but only subcategories:

The language-specific subcategories of Category:Male names and Category:Female names seem to invite random categorization: I can´t see that "Maria" or "Anne" were specifically Catalan or "Samuel" specifically Spanish (or else why they shouldn´t be categorized in about 120 other languages as well.) Please discuss the need for the subcategories and - if you really consider them helpful for Commons´ scope of storing media files - suggest a category description that makes clear how names and languages are to be assigned to each other. Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a seperate discussion, perhaps, could we hide the (given name) categories? The category relays no information about the person. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first -and most basic- information about a person is her/his name, IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not as a category. The name is stated at the top. It adds nothing to know who else is called, say, "Felix". -- Deadstar (msg) 08:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Names have their own fashion; they say a lot of things about the person, the idiosyncrasy of her parents, etc. It is such a simple thing... Only think about the case of former Jews in Spain (the Golden Sefarad) who took the surname "Santa Cruz". Oh sorry, that's a surname, not a male name. --E4024 (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the language/gender-specific categories are helpful. That's partly for the reasons mentioned above, and partly because a name can be from different languages and for different genders. For example, "Jean" is a French male name but an English female one. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I name my daughter Melisa it means we are a secular family (or I watch too much TV :) and if I name her Cennet probably we are a bit religious. And so on... (Sorry, these are female names, I got confused again. :) --E4024 (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, male names: Why do we have a user:Christian Ferrer (good admin BTW :) but not user Muslim Ferrer? What if I call my son "Hamdullah" (Thanks to God) or "Gökberk"? In the first case we can easily assume we have a pious family, in the latter probably a Turkish nationalist. Probably... (Probably means useful hints.) --E4024 (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming more and more common for people to choose names according to fashion, example a lot of french people choose names of Anglo-Saxon origin while they are not of Anglo-Saxon origin. Therefore it becomes difficult to determine the origin of someone with their given name. I do not particularly see any particular interest in these categories, but it does not bother me particularly either. With the structured data and Wikidata, all this kind of categories will certainly disappear eventually, as the ethological origin of a first name can be defined with a property and then it should be easy for all those who are interested in finding people according to the origin of their first name, to obtain this kind of result with simple queries. In fact, all that falls under categories intersetions should become gradually obsolete and replaced by queries. Hallelujah, categories for discussion and all the related maintenance work will be greatly simplified. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Masculine given names. While I think categories like these are utterly worthless for helping people find usable media, the categories names should at least be unambiguous. Since {{Wikidata infobox}} automatically imposes Given name and Surname categories whether we like it or not, our surname and given name categories should be kept distinct. A name is not male or female (people are) but it can be culturally masculine or feminine in usage. --Animalparty (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: I wasn't aware that that {{Wikidata infobox}} imposed any categorization at all (besides its own maintenance category). Josh (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Wikidata Infobox adds several types of categories, both hidden and not, based on corresponding Wikidata fields. I'm most familiar with its usage in biographical categories: see e.g. Category:John McCain, in which it automatically adds categories for birth and death years, given name and surname , a variety of awards received (e.g. Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart (United States)) and hidden categories such as "Deceased people by name", "Men by name", "People by name". See more at Commons:Wikidata infobox help. As for the Given name categories themselves, I'm not sure if they predated the existence of the Wikidata Infobox, but the infobox has certainly aided in filling them. --Animalparty (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: Wow, thanks for pointing that out. It has certainly advanced a lot from the last time I've taken a good look at it. The good news is that if any of the template-imposed categorization needs to change, Mike Peel (talk · contribs) has been pretty responsive in updating it to fix problems. The template should serve the Commons, not the other way around. Josh (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Given names. These categories are indeed worthless for media discovery. I agree with Animalparty (talk · contribs) that names are not gendered, despite cultural limitations that may exist (or have existed) on which humans such names were given too. To impose our own assertions on given names just ensures that the categorization is not only useless, but fundamentally incorrect. The question of language-specific names is a bit more involved, but I'm not sure how one determines the language of a name, so I likwise lean to eliminaing these distinctions in our categorization scheme. At a minimum, they are worthless for media discovery, and worse they may be inaccurate and proliferate misconceptions. Josh (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, enwiki also uses the category name "masculine given names" and "feminine given names", see en:Category:Given names. Secondly, I also think that this given name categorization by language should be stopped and liquidated from Commons. In enwiki, this categorization may stay--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Rail Class 350s on the Glossop Line

This category should be deleted as Class 350s and Class 185s have never been on the Glossop line. Secondly, as these unit are in a depot, I wouldn‘t classify them to be on any line. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that a depot is on a line, and in this case it's the Glossop Line. As far as I'm concerned, any bit of rail connected to the national network is a line of some sort - be that an extension past the terminus (as in the case of Goodrington Carriage Sidings) or adjacent to the line (such as at Reading). A line is not just when the trains are in service, it exists independently of the trains. I'm open to this not being the Glossop Line if you can come up with some more appropriate line. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geof Sheppard: and Oxyman for consultation. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see Pkbwcgs' argument that this is in a depot rather than a running line, I agree with Mattbuck that it is connected to the Glossop Line. You could possibly make a case for it being connected to the Stafford-Manchester Line instead as the connection is right at the junction of the two and Stafford is the primary route into Piccadilly. Geof Sheppard (talk)

Category:SNCB-NMBS Type 36

Anachronistic duplication of Category:Belgian State Railways Type 36. SNCB didn't exist at this time. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree however there are already 19 other categories of engines labeled as SNCB-NMBS that began life as Belgian State Railways (EB) engines (and most of them ran for SNCB longer than they did for EB) so I don't know what to do with all of them. It could be better in order to have some continuity between all engines used by SNCB to label as "Belgian State Railways type..." classes that were withdrawn before the SNCB was created or that changed name when SNCB started to use them. That's one of the reasons why I createdCategory:Belgian State Railways Type 15‎ and some other cats. talk) 22:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a point for the existence of one category for the Type 36 et al., but not to duplicate it when we also have a better named cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Andy Dingley and Stratoswift: In the meantime, Category:Belgian State Railways Type 36 is changed to a redirect. What is the situation here?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By browsing Category:Steam locomotives of Belgium and Category:Steam locomotives of Belgian State Railways, locomotives that started their careers with the Belgian State Railways are named SNCB-NMBS Type … while names such as Belgian State Railways Type … is only used when the class became extinct before the creation of the SNCB-NMBS (1926) or when the SNCB-NMBS class numbers differs from the Belgian State one (like the type 32/32S becoming type 44/41). The type 36 locomotives came to life in 1909-1922, were still listed as type 36 by the SNCB/NMBS and were ultimately withdrawn in 1947 Stratoswift (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:March 2011 France photographs

Redundant to Category:March 2011 in France? Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated in the Village pump (permanent link) I think, among other problems, this type of categories indeed are redundant. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 16:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. But make sure they end up back in (for example) Category:March 2011 in France. -- Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete but as Jmabel says make sure files end back up in the right category. Abzeronow (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu, Apalsola, Havang(nl), Jmabel, and Abzeronow: There is consensus here to merge to Category:March 2011 in France. However, there are many other categories with similar naming (for France and for other countries) that should probably be changed in the same way. Do we need to publicize this so that 1) we get agreement for the larger effort and/or 2) we don't unduly surprise people when these are renamed? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think all similarly named categories should be renamed in the same way but, as you said, that probably needs a broader discussion. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 10:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a broader discussion is probably in order. Abzeronow (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An announcement on the Village Pump & 72 hours for people to raise objections would be enough. I don't see this requiring another whole go-round here at CfD. - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and similar cases. I agree with the general reasoning above. The vast majority of files on Commons are photos so I don't see a need for subcategorizing specifically as photographs. Categorizing uploads by day (e.g. 2011-03-01 in France) is fine by me, though. Blythwood (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:June 2014 France photographs

Redundant to Category:June 2014 in France; an unnecessary and confusing duplication Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there similar duplicates with the other "<Month> <year> <Country> photographs" categories? What should the standard name be? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/08/Category:March_2011_France_photographs is another example. I'm pretty exhausted right now so I haven't looked at how many there are. They should all go, however. How is an uploader to know how to use these categories? There will be mistakes and duplicates. Let's keep it simple and not open up cans of worms. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many of them: just see Category:Photographs by date by country and its sub-categories. I do agree that they all are redundant with Category:<MONTH> <YEAR> in <COUNTRY> and thus should be deleted. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 16:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a consensus for the categories that specify month and year. What about the ones that also specify a day, such as Category:France photographs taken on 2014-06-02? Do we eliminate them, on the assumption that categorizing by month is enough? Or do we rename them, maybe to something like "France on 2014-06-02"? My preference would be to combine them into month categories, especially since so many of the day categories have a very small number of files. If there is a large number for a specific day, it's probably because there was a specific event that day, and a category can be created for that event.

Notes:

If these cat names change, then some templates may need to be deleted or changed as well, such as Template:France photographs taken on navbox/sub.
There is at least one city category with similar naming: Category:Tokyo photographs taken on 2018-01-22.

--Auntof6 (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this discussion first time. I don't want to discuss something here, but there are hundreds of similar city categories: Category:Dresden photographs taken on 2005-12-02, Category:Recke photographs taken on 2014-08-30, Category:Tecklenburg photographs taken on 2017-01-31, ... --XRay ^talk 06:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And another Information: I've seen a lot of discussions within the last years about categories like "... photographs taken on ..." and the navigation templates. Please have a look to all these discussion - with the search engine. There is no common agreement. --XRay ^talk 07:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with @Rodhullandemu and Auntof6: . Plus what does "France photographs" mean? Photographs of France? Photographs in France? Photographs by French photographers? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful for many users. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 06:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Triplec85: Please explain how this is useful for many users. Also, what are your thoughts on the comment that the phrase "France photographs" is unclear? Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thousands of photographs by year become a structure.

2. Easy to navigate through months ... and other advantages.

3. By the time, more and more users have good smartphones with good cameras (every day available on their way)... The number of images is constantly increasing, still progressive. Bots are uploading more and more images. We already have over 90 million images. We will have billions of images in Commons before the end of this century. These categories create order, even in the long term.

4. And: Useful (in their individual opinion) for many users.

"France" photographs is clear for me, same as Category:June 2014 United States photographs, Category:June 2014 Germany photographs, .......... etc. (Photographs in COUNTRY).

I see no consensus to change or delete.

Greets -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 07:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and similar cases. I agree with the general reasoning above. The vast majority of images on Commons are photos so I don't see a need for subcategorizing specifically as photographs. Blythwood (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artichauts à la juive

Another similar food I found around there. It was in neither cat. Needs a Spanish translation of the name, to create a new cat, perhaps...

Name and contents very similar to Category:Carciofi alla giudia. Should we merge them? E4024 (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the discussion. I understand in some language this name ("Jewish style artichoke/s") was used first and then passed to other languages. It could be an interesting etymological study. Alas, close this and let's save efforts, but look at the pic I added also. --E4024 (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Carciofi alla giudia as the standard English usage. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning ! There are two different dishes as French Gruyere is different from Swiss Gruyère --Varaine (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. Seems to be same food. See eg [1], which says "Carciofi alla giudia, littéralement « artichauts à la Juive »". @Varaine: please elaborate your statement, references would be also good. Otherwise we cannot consider your statement--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liver as food

Instead of the very confusing "as food" and "based food" "duplicate" cats, we should use the word "dishes". Let's please make (nothing stops me, but I want to change the previous situation first) a cat for "liver dishes". Only in Turkish cuisine we have at least 10 varieties of them. E4024 (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion: I think indeed I'm proposing to discuss Category:Liver based food. Am I not? :) --E4024 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Liver as food" is for images that show a piece of raw liver, for instance in the market, to be sold as food. "Liver-based food" should be for prepared liver dishes. Quite some time ago, someone or some people started changing many of the categories "..... dishes" into "....-based food". I don't have a preference for one or the other. - Takeaway (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should. "Dishes" prevents stupid people like me from making wrong categorization. --E4024 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "liver as food" category and at most one of the "dishes" or "-based food" cats. The latter would not include showing liver that is for consumption but which has not been made into a dish yet (for example, Takeaway's example above of liver for sale, images of ingredients that include liver, or even nutritional info about liver).
Somewhat along these sane lines, shouldn't some of the subcats either be renamed to specify "as food" or be moved out of the "as food" cat? Resolving this might require merging Category:Pork liver and Category:Sus scrofa domesticus livers. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Takeaway and Auntof6: Am I right, that we shouldn't merge Category:Liver as food and Category:Liver-based food? Secondly, Category:Pork liver and Category:Sus scrofa domesticus livers seems to be the same thing--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i'm having the same problem now. i want to create a subcat for cat:shark fins for images of shark fins intended for human consumption (a delicacy in east asia), but i cant be sure whether it should be "shark fins as food" or "shark fin-based food".

as i look to the top parent of this kind of cats, cat:animals as food redirects to cat:animal-based food.

i do feel that the distinction noted above -- "as food" for everything, including things not yet made into consumable food, vs "-based food" for something already made into food -- is valid. RZuo (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we can adopt the same ideas in Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Tomatoes as food. RZuo (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AK bayonets

Doesen't there exist a more exact designation of this bayonett? As we have diffrent bayonetts in the cat like File:01 ak47.jpg and File:02 mpi-2.jpg. Sanandros (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are hard to find. OTOH these are interchangable bayonets, at least from M59 on forward. I don't know if the M47 fits on a AKM, maybe the bayonet lug will interfere. I see no need to distinguish them further from what the gallery provides. --Markscheider (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Sanandros and Markscheider: The nominated category is a container categoy with several subcategories. We also have the gallery AK bayonets. Are we satisfied here?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me a definition is still missing what we should categorize in this cat.--Sanandros (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08

Contents

Category:Male names

Category:British Rail Class 350s on the Glossop Line

Category:SNCB-NMBS Type 36

Category:March 2011 France photographs

Category:June 2014 France photographs

Category:Artichauts à la juive

Category:Liver as food

Category:AK bayonets

Navigation menu

Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08

Navigation menu

Search