Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in October 2019.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/10.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2019-10.
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

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:GHS pictograms

[edit]

Uninformative name Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Вадзім Медзяноўскі: Please elaborate on your proposal to make it more informative. Josh (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pictograms of dangerous. --Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This is probably the best name for this. GHS is a widely known acronym for Globally Harmonised System and 'GHS pictograms' is the name used in the CLP Regulation. The other name used in the CLP Regulation is 'hazard pictograms', but it would be ambiguous in this situation, because it may mean every hazard pictogram not only GHS pictogram. Wostr (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of GHS before, so it's not universally known, and I think we're better off avoiding acronyms. en:GHS can mean a lot of things. On the other hand, Category:Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals pictograms does seems unwieldly. I'm not sure what to suggest... - Themightyquill (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I dont't get the logic. "I have not heard of it." implies that "It is not widely known."? ??? Gee, I wish I were a quarter as self-confident. But joke aside, everyone who works with hazardous materials has to have heard of GHS at some point. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DrTorstenHenning: I cleary said "universally known", so my statement is factual. You're suggesting that, because everyone who works with harzardous chemicals knows what it means, that it's a "widely known" acronym, which is obviously not true. Would you suggest that most people using wikimedia commons work with chemicals? By contrast, anyone who works with hazardous chemicals can surely figure out that Globally Harmonized System means GHS. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:GHS pictogramsMove to/Rename asCategory:Globally Harmonized System pictograms
@Вадзім Медзяноўскі, Wostr, Themightyquill, and DrTorstenHenning: Per COM:CAT, initialisms, acronyms and abbreviations should be avoided in favor of spelling out names. We can use short names instead of full formal official names so long as they are sufficient to identify the subject. For example, we use "United States", not "US", "USA", or "United States of America", and "United Kingdom" instead of "UK" or "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". How well known an initialism is does not change the equation, as both of these are far more well known than GHS and they still have to conform.
Josh (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GHS pictogram" is an official name used in EU legal acts. I don't see any reason to change it, especially considering the whole series of such categories (NFPA 704, ECB, ADR, WHMIS, ...) exists, and I won't take part in this pointless discussion any longer. Wostr (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wostr: Can you provide some evidence that it's used in EU legal acts without actually spelling it out first? Come on. I don't think moving to Category:Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals pictograms makes much sense but Category:Globally Harmonized System pictograms seems fine. Even something like Category:GHS chemical hazard pictograms would give uninitiated users more context. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wostr, Joshbaumgartner, Themightyquill, and DrTorstenHenning: whenever possible we should avoid not widely known acronyms in titles of categories. I am supporting Josh (Globally Harmonized System pictograms)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep current title per general usage of the abbreviation at GHS hazard pictograms, UNECE and Safe Work Australia, amongst others. --Minoa (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FN FAL in Libyan service

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Military equipment by country.

All of the shown rifles are used by rebells, s oas long as we don't have pics of gouvermental use, I'd suggest to delete this cat and move the files to the FN FAL parent cat. Sanandros (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral No problem to delete this category. I prefered to have the rifles sorted by user but I unsterstand your remark.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Not sure this category should be deleted. "In Libyan service" can mean any Libyan operator of a weapon--assuming it only means official government use is an unwarranted leap. Sub-cats can group these by specific named operators if need be. Take Category:Aircraft in Australian service, there sub-cats for airlines, government, military, police, and executive operators, as well as media of aircraft of private Australian operators. If any Libyan operator uses the FN FAL, then this category is warranted. Josh (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Small Arms Survery p. 49 says it's impossible to trace the origins of these rifles. So they could be from anywhere. Furthermore this cat is conncecete to Gouverment of Lybia over the Cats Military Eqiment of Lybia -> Military of Lybia -> Gouverment of Lybia. But we can't say that these weapons are linked to the gouvement of Lybia.--Sanandros (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They may soon be seen in service with Libyan "governmental armies" (GNA or LNA), cf this tweet.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soon is not at time of photography. And Twitter is not a reliable source.--Sanandros (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the purpose of Commons categories to maintain the current service status of military equipment. Who has what is something that is constantly evolving and is not always publicly known with authority. Category assignments are not referenced with sources, so they cannot function as such. They only serve to ease user access to files maintained by the repository. Whether or not the FN FAL is officially part of the Libyan government's inventory or not is completely irrelevant to our category scheme. If we have a file depicting the FN FAL being used by a Libyan operator, then it belongs here or in a sub-cat of this one. I 100% agree that the overall tree is far too misleading, as pointed to by Sanandros (talk · contribs). If the category were Category:FN FAL in Libyan government service then it would be more restrictive. The entire category structure of weapons 'in Foo service' should be reviewed, but as it is currently implemented, this category is correct to have files of Libyan rebels with FN FAL rifles. Josh (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change the category tree, you are free to do so. But if you want to include non govermental organisations, then you need to define how they are, in this case, Lybian, as Tuareg from Mali fought in the Lybian War. So are these Lybian or Malian usage of a firearm?--Sanandros (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deep rabbit hole, Sanandros (talk · contribs), when a South African working for an American organization is operating on behalf of the Iraqi government, who exactly is their weapon serving? If we want to restrict 'in Fooian service' to mean exclusively weapons in the official inventory of government agencies, there is nothing wrong with that per se. Apparently some users approach these categories with this exact presumption. However, it is not explicitly stated and thus there are also many users who do not apply this presumption. Hence, situations like this. If you want to set on overaching precedent for 'in service' categories, that would really need to be discussed at a much higher level (Category:Military equipment by country perhaps). But until that is decided on, the fact that this category does not meet a restrictive definition that has not been broadly adopted does not constitute sufficient cause to delete the category. Josh (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: OK I started another discussion ant the miltary eqipment cat which u linked.--Sanandros (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of the Union flag by civil parish

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Union Jack.

Unnecessary depth, and this could grow to be both huge and pointless as few people know about civil parishes, let alone care. County then maybe town level is adequate. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a UK term for a fourth level administrative level division. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photographs of the Union flag by civil parishMove to/Rename asCategory:Photographs of the Union Jack by civil parish
Main parent cat for the flag is Category:Union Jack. These categories are valid so long as there are sufficient files to support them.
Josh (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The Union flag is only a jack when it is flown on a jackstaff. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Union Jack, your assertion is a matter of debate. It also misses the point that subs of Category:Union Jack should be named consistently. If you feel "Union flag" is a better name for the parent category, by all means make that case on its CfD, but so long as it is "Union Jack", its subs should match. Josh (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Districts in the United Kingdom

[edit]

Misleading title. Districts are of towns and cities, not counties or constituent countries of the UK. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a UK term for a third level administrative level division. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
District itself is too vague. There are, e.g. districts of Liverpool that are parts of the Metropolitan District (and City) of Liverpool but they are not Districts within the meaning of this category. Split into Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Districts and let the cities have their (separate) districts. Also, there are no statutory districts in Scotland or Wales. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense to me. Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Category:Metropolitan boroughs of England already exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Superficially attractive, but e.g. Ropewalks, Baltic Triangle and Cultural Quarter in Liverpool are not suburbs, they're in the City Centre. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least suburbs (and similar) shouldn't be mixed with local government districts since there two different things and Category:Districts of cities in England should probably be removed from Category:Districts in England (and the same for the likes of Category:Districts of Dundee). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disagreement Images of WLM 2019 in Taiwan

[edit]

If this category serves any purpose, at least, "Disagreement Images" needs to be defined(so that everyone knows how to use it).--Kai3952 (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. All these categories are hidden categories, so grammar exactitude is not crucial. The others are:

  1. Category:Disagreement Images of WLE 2017 in Taiwan
  2. Category:Disagreement Images of WLE 2018 in Taiwan
  3. Category:Disagreement Images of WLE 2019 in Taiwan
  4. Category:Disagreement Images of WLM 2018 in Taiwan
  5. Category:Disagreement Images of WLM 2019 in Taiwan
  6. Category:Disagreement Images of WLM 2020 in Taiwan

--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all. they are temporary cats.
@Reke: there's no reason to keep all your temporary "work area", "checked", etc., all these cats on commons forever. you hold the events once a year but there're still cats from 2017?!
alternatively, as far as i can understand, you should rename "Category:Disagreement Images" to something like "disqualified images" (取消資格? 不合規?), it that's what you mean, images that do not satisfy rules of the contest. that title would make sense and the cat can be kept forever. RZuo (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want these categories to be kept forever either. Please see the discussion before.-- Reke (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Reke nearly two years later. can the 6 cats in #c-Estopedist1-2021-12-11T16:56:00.000Z-Category:Disagreement_Images_of_WLM_2019_in_Taiwan be deleted now? RZuo (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For categories in 2017-2019, yes, I think there won't be any problem for the events over 5 years.--Reke (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reke so files in Category:Disagreement Images of WLE 2017 in Taiwan should be moved to Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2017 in Taiwan, or? RZuo (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these moving is necessary. All pictures has been already in "Category: Images from Wiki Loves Earth YYYY in Taiwan", so just remove the category for working is fine.-- Reke (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spomenici kulture

[edit]

There already was discussion (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Spomenici kulture) but I think that DAB is not a good solution. Better is to redirect this title to the category:Cultural heritage monuments or just to delete this title at all, because it is not language/nation specific stuff (it is a general term for cultural heritage monuments)? Estopedist1 (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a dab page for nearly 4 years. Can you demonstrate what harm is is causing? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no harm, but just a bad precedent, in case if I am right (I do not speak Serbian)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:She holds the baby

[edit]

The name of this category seems odd and, moreover, the intended content seems to double the Category:Women holding babies hundred procent. Therefore I suggest to place the current content to the latter and remove this category. Eissink (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, @Strakhov, you might very well be right – I didn't see it that way before. So yes, renaming might be a solution. Still, I leave the discussion open, and let the community decide. Thanks. Eissink (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Comment: As Strakhov comments, this category is associated with the phenomenon of breastfeeding ...as the two categories to which it is anchored explain and reveal. It is also complementary to: "She pinches the breast", and other categories contained in: Category:Breastfeeding by posture... All of them make up a set of visual galleries related to catalogs initiated by art critical scholars such as Max Friedlander or later scholars of the Madonna col Bambino as a hagiographic theme. Personally, I don't see the need to change any of these names in the referred categories. They are clear and explicit, and allow grouping more current examples of this classification. But if after a thorough analysis and review of the related iconography, they get more 'appropriate' categorization titles, go ahead with the work.--Latemplanza (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see, as related also to Commons:Naming categories, is that 'She', 'The baby', or 'He' (see Category:He embraces the breast) are not plurals and that the titles are not describing what they intend to describe. F.i. "He embraces the breast" is really categorizing Breastfeeding male babies holding mother's breast, or maybe Paintings of baby Jesus holding Mary's breast – depending on whatever you really want to categorize. Eissink (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
 Comment:Nicely summed up Eissink. I too have been troubled by these sub categories of Category:Breastfeeding by posture. Categories need to stand reasonably alone in their description. If we don't change the name, Category:He pinches the breast might attract all sorts of images that have nothing to so with breastfeeding and surely not the intent of the creator of the Category!--Headlock0225 (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Headlock0225 and Eissink. If we really need this cat at least it has to be renamed. Can one imagine breastfeeding without holding, so Madonna lactans categories are sufficient.--Oursana (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birgitta of Hohenzollern

[edit]

Name change of Category as no such Person as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ existing, though the individual here named as so is and should be renamed as ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’, a Swedish Princess who is only married to a Prince of the Noble Princely House of HohenzollernImperialArchivesRU (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Her legal married German name i Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern. Sweden (Schweden) is not mentioned. "von Hohenzollern" translates as of Hohenzollern. That's sufficient in this context. Unnecessary moves are not appropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This category was improperly moved to Category:Princess Birgitta of Sweden by Rereader1996 (talk · contribs) without proper conclusion of this CfD. Since SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) has offered objection and it has not been answered, I do not believe we can close this in favor of a move yet. I have reversed the move pending completion of this CfD. Josh (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: , @SergeWoodzing: Princess Birgitta’s official name and title as well as the title of which she is always referred to by the Swedish Royal court and news outlets (the majority which base their articles on factual information) is: ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’ as at no point in her entire life has she ever been, ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinzessin Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinsessan Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or even ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’; furthermore, her English Wikipedia page (which is always the go-to, for the majority of readers) is named en:Princess Birgitta of Sweden in addition to the German one, de:Birgitta Ingeborg Alice von Schweden.

The category category:Birgitta of Hohenzollern was most probably made due to the lack of factual information and assumption that due to her marriage to a Hohenzollern Prince, that she immediately becomes known as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ which isn’t the case in the slightest.

  • The Royal Website of the Swedish Royal Family refers to her as: Princess Birgitta
  • The Top leading Royal news outlet refer to her as ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’ Royal Central

Therefore I suggest for the category to be correctly reverted to ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’ to comply with accurate and factual information rather than misleading based on ones own opinions of how she should be legally titled when the evidence outweighs the opinions.Rereader1996 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is her legal married name? Does anybody care? Like a genealogy site, Wikipedia always uses the maiden names of royal women, regardlesss of what their actual legal married names are. "Royal Central" has no official standing & is not a reliable source as evidenced by errors (bs) about the Swedish constitution in that very article. The Swedish royal court has never used "of Sweden" about Birgitta since she got married. In Germany, where Birgitta has lived for many years and where she gave birth to all her German-born children, policy since the abolishion of the Germany monarchies in 1918 has been to add the formerly valid titles legally to the surnames of the ex-royalty. Thus her name would be Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern as married. Alleging that she has never been known as "of Hohenzollern" or the like ignores her marriage and is just not accurate. Without seeing her passort, no Wikipedian call tell what's right or wrong. Nevertheless, this could easily have been solved by a redirect rather than a move. Much tadoo about nothing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: Depending on the country and it’s laws of registration, Imperials Royals and those members of ruling families don’t have married names as their name-title is what they’re registered under; Birgitta may have resided in Germany in addition to currently residing in Spain, however that does not mean her title changes even due to marriage; her current and only title of which she is known as and is officially referred to is ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’, not ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’, the Former also taking precedence over the two latter examples; if say she was ever known as ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or even ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’, the Swedish Royal Court has never referred to her as such as they only refer to her as ‘Princess Birgitta’ as they do with all Princes and Princesses in the family as you will see in this link [1], her elder sister has been referred to with her official and legal title and style ‘Princess Margaretha, Mrs Ambler‘ and their cousin has been referred to as just ‘Princess Benedikte’ though she is also officially ‘Princess Benedikte of Denmark’, infact even her nephew and niece as ‘Princess Madeleine’ and ‘Prince Carl Philip’ which itself proves that if Birgitta’s official and legal name was ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollenrn’ (like her husband has as you will see in the same link listed as ‘H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern‘) then she would literally be listed as such! @Joshbaumgartner: . Rereader1996 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why discuss this any further? Just to try to prove that one is wrong and the other right? It could easily be solved by a redirect rather than a move. Unnecessary category moves, just to satisfy one user's personal opinions or another's about format, are never appropriate. Birgitta married a titular prince of Hohenzollern and then became a titular princess of Hohenzollern. She is often called that & it is not incorrect to refer to her as such. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: Because there is literally no such person as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’ to exists. Technically Prince Johannes was never and has never been a titular Prince, he by descent and legitimacy has been a Prince as are his children however due to the implicated naming laws in Germany forced German Royals and aristocrats to have a family name however Birgitta being married to a Hohenzollern Prince doesn’t necessarily mean she is a Hohenzollern Princess as Princesses don’t just assume the titles of their husband unless changes have been made. @Joshbaumgartner: . Rereader1996 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We may be having a language problem, and/or what I've written here may have been mostly ignored, including the link to one of Sweden's major magazines which writes about "Prinsessan Birgitta av Hohenzollern". In any case some of the terminology makes no sense to me at all, and some of the statements are definitely conjecture. Seems like there is a wish to deny that a woman gets her husband's title when they are married. I've never heard of such a bizarre idea. There is a difference between Wikipedia's maiden-name-only policy for royal women and what actually goes on the real world. And Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia anyway. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Leave this alone and let a redirect cover her maiden name & status. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: As has been stated a few times, there is literally no such person as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’ to exist and nor is Princess Birgitta referred to or known as such and very rarely is she ever called as such by media, if it is that much of an issue then first of all I would suggest to change the names of the Wikipedia Pages en:Princess Birgitta of Sweden, es:Brígida de Suecia (1937), fr:Birgitte de Suède, it:Brigitta di Svezia, nl:Birgitta van Zweden (1937), ro:Prințesa Birgitta a Suediei, pt:Brígida da Suécia, sl:Brigita Švedska (1937), no:Birgitta av Sverige and cs:Birgitta Švédská to this apparent ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’ or whatever new name title she apparently and assumingly has because of being married to a Hohenzollern Prince. Rereader1996 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We must rely more on Svensk Damtidning in this matter than on the personal opinions of any Wikipedian. Ignoring the link I provided to that magazine, as an example of where she is called "Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern", is not helpful. Nor is repeating the same conjecture over and over. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: since when has Svensk Damtidning taken precedence of the Swedish Royal Court in facts? As I had literally posted a link above from the royal website explaining the difference in how Princess Birgitta and her husband were presented:“H.R.H. Princess Birgitta and H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern” [2] whereas if she was realistically ever ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinzessin Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinsessan Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or even ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ then the Royal website would literally write it as such, as they did with her husband whose Princely title wasn’t even mentioned before his name but was written as a surname (German law of naming conventions). Rereader1996 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is still a princess of Sweden, and (and) she is a titular princess of Honenzollern. The magazine knows that. So does the royal court. What the royal court chooses to call her is not decisive. If she is known as both, which she is, this move is not needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: As has already been explained before, if she were truly ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ then the royal website [3] would have referred to her as such (H.R.H Birgitta, Princess von Hohenzollern) as they did with her husband (“H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern”) whereas she was stated: “H.R.H. Princess Birgitta“, just as her nephew and niece were: “H.R.H. Princess Madeleine/H.R.H. Prince Carl Philip” in addition to her sisters being referred with their full title: “Princess Margaretha, Mrs Ambler/Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld/Princess Christina, Mrs Magnuson“ which in itself proves that she is officially not even referred to and known with ‘Hohenzollern’ in her title. Rereader1996 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Considering the fact that if she were to be titled as a Hohenzollern then she would literally be officially referred to as any of the examples: ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’, ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta, Princess von Hohenzollern’ etc... (like her husband has: “H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern”) just as her sisters have been referred to with their official titles: “Princess Margaretha, Mrs Ambler/Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld/Princess Christina, Mrs Magnuson“ whereas Princess Birgitta of Sweden has been referred to in the same style as a Princess of Sweden just as her niece and nephew have “H.R.H. Princess Madeleine/H.R.H. Prince Carl Philip”.[1] Rereader1996 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is relevant to the fact that she is known by both names, her maiden name and her married name, as clearly has been shown. Thus the move is not necessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: In what sense is it not relevant? As I have previously stated, if the Royal website itself states her as ‘HRH Princess Birgitta’ like they do with the other Swedish Princes and Princesses rather than referring to her as ‘HRH Birgitta Princess von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or whatever you believe she is titled as, that in itself presents the argument of her being officially known as ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’, as I have mentioned earlier in another page name change discussion, I understand that you want to take control of Swedish Royal Category Pages, however incorrect names/titles are pretty pointless and confusing. Thus I put forward the reiteration to Princess Birgitta of Sweden. Rereader1996 (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no constructive reason to respond input by any user who makes intentionally rude fantasy accusations like " I understand that you want to take control of Swedish Royal Category Pages". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: ‘intentionally rude fantasy’ according to yourself however evidently we can see this in other edits and CFD’s; as it is, I still stand by my statement on the basis of your not following factual information, rather, basing your edits and reverts on your assumptions. Rereader1996 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong oppose The official name used by the Swedish royal house and the press generally is "Princess Birgitta of Sweden." And more...

The only version of Wikipedia that uses "Hohenzollern" in the article title is nn:Birgitta av Sverige og Hohenzollern, anyway, Sweden is in the title and comes before Hohenzollern. There is no reason to justify this change. Minerva97 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ https://www.kungahuset.se/royalcourt/media/pressreleases/olderpressreleases/pressreleasesearlier/theentryoftheguestsofhonourintothecathedral.5.40e05eec12926f2630480003473.html

Category:Eglinton Country Park

[edit]

redirect to deleted category Robby (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target category does not appear to be a deleted category. It looks like you meant to close this discussion? @Robby: – BMacZero (🗩) 19:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the target category is not deleted. I wanted to ask for the deletion of the redirect page and should have marked this categary with the template bad name. Sorry for this 'black-out' moment from my part. Robby (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is any other Eglinton Country Park, this should be made into a disambiguation. Otherwise, keep the redirect, as it is what most people will type when searching for it. --rimshottalk 22:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @BMacZero, Robby, Rimshot, and Crouch, Swale: enwiki en:Eglinton Country Park is reserved to Scotland one, but its hatnote declares that "not to be confused with Eglinton Park (Toronto)" (we also have Category:Eglinton Park). Do we use enwiki solution?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Sounds like you mean to move Category:Eglinton Country Park, Scotland to here and hatnote Category:Eglinton Park on that page. That sounds fine to me. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested solution sounds well to me. Robby (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted we either need to move the Scottish one to the base name or have a DAB here, the current situation is both against item 2 of the category redirects page here given it means readers still have to click through it and against w:WP:PRECISION. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Category:Eglinton Country Park, Scotland back to Category:Eglinton Country Park and adding a hatnote to Category:Eglinton Park. Apparently Eglinton Country Park is also known as Eglinton Park, but not the other way around (cf. their website, which uses the name with and without country). --rimshottalk 22:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kiting

[edit]

same as category:Kitesurfing? Estopedist1 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems similar, with the possible exception of the image that's on snow. I'm not sure it's kitesurfing if it isn't on water. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tropical Depression 21W (2019)

[edit]

Already have a new category at: (Category:Tropical Storm Neoguri (2019)) 👦 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

on the basis of en:2019_Pacific_typhoon_season I did the redirect to Category:Typhoon Neoguri (2019)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
mind if i reuse it for Kammuri? FleurDeOdile (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tätorter i Finland

[edit]

The category has many problems. Apalsola t • c 17:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories are problematic in numerous ways:

Finland is divided in municipalities (Finnish: kunta, Swedish: kommun; Wikidata:Q856076). Some of the municipalities are called cities (Finnish: kaupunki, Swedish: stad). However, there has not been legal nor administrative difference between municipalities or cities since 1977; it is a sole decision of the municipality itself whether it wants to be called "city" or not and, apart the name, that decision does not have other effects.

Municipalities are divided in municipal districts (Finnish: kunnanosa or kaupunginosa, Swedish: kommundel or stadsdel; Wikidata:Q21682724) and (more or less unofficially) to villages.

Currently there is quite comprehensive categorisation based on municipalities and also districts and villages in Commons.

Now the two categories in question bring another, ambiguous level of categorisation. Particularly the term "ort" is a bit problematic: it is Swedish and translates to "place", "site" or "location" but it is unclear to at least to me what kind of locations is supposed to be categorised under that category. Cities (would be redundant to Category:Cities in Finland), municipalities (would be redundant to Category:Municipalities in Finland), any human settlement (would soon to be bloated), any geographic locatin (would soon to be bloated) or something else? Thus, currently the category is quite problematic in terms of modularity and selectivity principles.

The term urban area (Finnish: taajama, Swedish: tätort; Wikidata:Q61492541) is indeed used also in Finland for some (e.g. statistical) purposes. However, (unlike in Sweden, for example) the term is not in daily use, so I doubt this category would urban area-based categorisation would only make things more complicated without providing any clear benefits.

And the final problem with the both categories is their language: they are in Swedish. According to Language Policy and Category Policy, category names should generally be in English, and these categories are generic categories, so the policies clearly apply to this case. And even if we (for some extraordinary reason) wanted to make an exception for the local language, Finnish would be a better choice since 87.6% of the population of Finland speaks Finnish as their native language and only 5.2% Swedish. (They both are official languages of Finland though.)

So, I propose that both of the categories are deleted and the files are categorised under current city/municipality-based categories. If the categories are not deleted, at least their names should be translated into English and the meaning of the word "ort" should be clarified. ––Apalsola t • c 17:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to join here by User:Apalsola in my discussion page in fi-wikipedia ([4]) and I also notice that Apalsola has also notified the creator of these categories who seems to be User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 in wikimedia commons. However, when one looks at the categories and the contents of the categories, it becomes apparent that the process has gone so that originally the image files seem to have been uploaded to wikimedia commons by User:SofiaEk who at her user page in wikimedia commons tells that she is "[c]urrently uploading media content for Projekt Fredrika r.f but also contributing to Wikimedia Commons whatever comes her way". And therefore it seems that the (then obviously red) linkks to these categories have been created when uploading these image files, and then it seems that only afterwards User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 only has made blue these red links by creating the categories and categorized them under the categories that somehow have seemed to fit to the topic.
And then the project in question, to which User Sofia Ek is working for is (in english) this: en:Wikipedia:Projekt Fredrika or in swedish: sv:Wikipedia:Projekt Fredrika or in Finnish: fi:Wikiprojekti:Projekt Fredrika. Within this project, as far as I can guess User:SofiaEk seems to work with uploading the files, and (as I happen to know previously) User:Alpark is working for the project as an experienced wikipedian and wikimedian. I now also notified the project about this discussion at the discussion page of the project in swedish language wikipedia. And I guess that the participants of this project could well be be able to help with the regategorizing of the material. - And as they best know the material they also probably could do it most easily.--Urjanhai (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After superficially looking at the material, the most would seem to fit under Category:Nagu, and catregozation under this could perhaps be done easily even by bot. After that the further categorization could be done manually, either to the existing subcategories or new subcategories that would be created when needed.
At the same time images would also be good to be categorized under different categories by topic, like: "Wooden Buildings in Finland", "communications in Finland" (or something like that, and the subcategories thereunder), "Summer in Finland" (or something like that) etc. Usually every picture should have a category by location (like Category:Nagu (and possible subcategories under that by location) and at the same time some category by topic (going down in the category tree from main categories like "Buildings in Finland" etc. both by location and topic). --Urjanhai (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think we can move the images to relevant established category trees and then remove these categories. People in the project agreed after having read the arguments. Most of the files should be moved to categories for the villages or islands, some of which need to be created. I think I will do that (in a week or so; I hope I will find them in these categories or in Category:Nagu). If someone wants to categorize according to subject matter (Category:Wooden houses in Finland etc.), that would be good, as some of those category trees are quite confusing. --Alpark (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Alpark@Apalsola@Urjanhai: currently both nominated categories are empty. What is the situation here? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the categories are empty noew, i guess they could well be removed. User:Alpark knows the original material best but as it has probably been sorted to the right categories now, the problem seems to be solved.--Urjanhai (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of dance

[edit]

A great majority of dance-related files are photographs, so this category largely overlaps Category:Dance. It's unlikely that someone would search for just photos of dance when photos are by far the predominant media type. Also, this category currently covers only a tiny fraction of dance photos; it would be a monumental task to increase coverage to a useful level and there seems to be no logical reason to do so. I suggest that it be deleted. Lambtron (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Many of the sub-categories don't fit into a tree anyway. We have Category:19th-century photographs of dancing bears but no Category:Dancing bears in the 19th century, Category:19th-century photographs of balls (dance) but no Category:Balls (dance) in the 19th-century. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tree includes a multitude of subcategories which are similarly problematic; these should also be deleted:

Lambtron (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambtron: I agree with eliminating the simply 'photographs of' categories under ballet, but not 'portrait photographs of' ones. Portrait photographs are a particular style of image that may well be sought to illustrate an article or other use, so it makes sense to have these remain. Any objection to moving forward with the rest while excluding portrait photograph categories from deletion? Josh (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Lambtron (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 19th century is the first EVER to have photographs of dance (or any subject). This alone should be enought to justify a seperate category. It's not drawings or paintings, but real images of dance and dancers. If you want more detail, fine, but let's keep this one to hold all the old images together. I'm talking of the 19th century here, not of the category "Photographs of dance"; I agree that a category "Photographs of dance" would be a little strange.--Judithcomm (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Judithcomm and Lambtron: probably should be used system: Category:19th-century photographs of ballet to be merged into Category:19th-century ballet. This system was already stated above--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
19th-century ballet is not just photographs, but also paintings, possibly documents, etc. Also dances originating from the 19th century, but danced in the 21st --Judithcomm (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Judithcomm and Lambtron: I guess, soon we ask: do we need Category:Photographs by topic (is already under discussion). Category:Images by subject is already emptied--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tibetan house

[edit]

Meaningless and replicated category. category:Buildings in Tibet and category:Houses in Tibet Available. MNXANL (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all buildings are houses. Tibetan houses are buildings where Tibetan households live. 钉钉 (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
House is a type of building where household(s) live, thus the category should be redirected to category:Houses in Tibet. MNXANL (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't sufficient academic studies shows that "Tibetan houses" is a type of architecture style adopted in Tibetan's houses: googling "tibetan house" will lead to the page of "Tibet House" founded by Dalai Lama; search using relevant Chinese words also does not. By looking at files at the category itself, I can definitely tell that the buildings in File:Tibetan House in Shigatse.jpg, File:Tibetan house.jpg and file:Tibetan house 3.jpg are absolutely not same of Architecture style; buildings in file:Tibetan house 1.jpg are apparently not residential houses. Since the term "Tibetan house" is not well-defined, I think the category is better to be redirected to category:Houses in Tibet and files in the category should be recategorized. MNXANL (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No all houses are Tibetan houses(藏式民居). There are also Han Chinese houses in Tibet. Yes, there are some difference in different regions. But they share common traits besides their differences. Han Chinese houses are not all the same either. "Tibet House" and "Tibetan House" definitely have different meanings. ̴̴̴̴̃

@钉钉: How would you propose we verify, from a picture, the ethnicity of the people living in the house? What should we do with houses of families of both Tibetan and Han Chinese ancestry? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are some proofs of Tibetan Housesː [5] [6] [7] [8] 钉钉 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@钉钉: Those are surely images of houses. How would you propose we verify, from a picture, the ethnicity of the people living in the house? What should we do with houses of families of both Tibetan and Han Chinese ancestry? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: you're making a mistake. Tibetan houses are houses built with Tibetan style. It doesn't depends on the ethnicity of people in the house. The sources I provided above prove that Tibetan house is a particular architecture in China..钉钉 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
if 钉钉 believes the Category:Tibetan house should exist, how you gonna differentiate it from the existing category:Houses in Tibet? MNXANL (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about skipping the houses part and using Category:Tibetan architecture or Category:Tibetan Buddhist architecture to match en:Tibetan Buddhist architecture? -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Tibetan architecture' is a too wide concept and those photos are not 'buddhist architecture' either. They are just ordinary civilian houses. 钉钉 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why Tibetan architecture is too wide a concept? We'll need a Tibetan architecture parent category anyway. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite ok to create a parent category Tibetan architecture and put Category:Tibetan house under it.钉钉 (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC) 钉钉 (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@钉钉: The 'mistake' that you ascribed to Themightyquill (talk · contribs) actually illustrates the problem with the current name. "Tibetan" by itself is not sufficient as an adjective to inform users of the actual purpose of this category. At first glance, one may well presume that 'Tibetan' means 'in Tibet', or possibly that 'Tibetan' means 'occupied by Tibetans' or even that it means 'built in Tibetan style'. None of those presumptions are any less valid than the next, so as a category, if it is to be one of these, it should be more descriptive in its name, such as Category:Houses in Tibet, Category:Houses occupied by Tibetans or Category:Tibetan-style houses to avoid the unnecessary confusion. Josh (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@钉钉, MNXANL, and Themightyquill: Any objections to simply renaming this category to Category:Tibetan-style houses? Josh (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: No objections, the new categories should under the Category:Houses by style and Category:Architecture of Tibet. Then What should we do with category:Houses in Tibet? I am thinking to put both category:Houses in Tibet and Category:Houses in Bhutan under it when the category is renamed. MNXANL (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to move "Category:Tibetan house". to "Category:Tibetan-style houses". 钉钉 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philanthropic organizations

[edit]

A number of problems:

  1. what's the difference between philanthropic and charitable orgs?
  2. Why is foundation underneath this? I think many foundations could be set up for advocacy of, say, political causes or business lobbyist activity, which may not be philanthropic. Roy17 (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very good question. en:Philanthropy says "A difference commonly cited is that charity aims to relieve the pain of a particular social problem, whereas philanthropy attempts to address the root cause of the problem—the difference between the proverbial gift of a fish to a hungry person, versus teaching them how to fish." But I'm not convinced we can easily tell the difference here. I suggest merging, though I couldn't say which one to keep and which one to redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged a few more categories. I can't see the difference between Category:Charities and Category:Charitable organizations. I'm also not sure we benefit from having both Category:Charity and Category:Philanthropy. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
enwp has two cat trees w:Category:Charities and w:Category:Philanthropic organizations. Category:Charities description says See also: Category:Philanthropic organizations. This category is closely related to the Non-governmental organizations and Nonprofit organizations categories. For English-speaking countries, whether an article appears in one or the other depends primarily on local usage, which varies from one country to another. If we look at other wikis, more of them pair their cat with Charities than with Philanthropic organizations.
Maybe we should build our tree under Charitable organizations?
Is there an example of a philanthropic org that's not charitable, or the other way around?--Roy17 (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17 and Themightyquill: Sounds like for the purposes of Commons, there is no need for a breakdown between charity and philanthropy. It is only a question of naming. I have no strong preference between the two, but I would strongly suggest that the organizations category match the overall category (i.e. if we go with Category:Philanthropy we also use Category:Philanthropic organizations, or if Category:Charity use Category:Charitable organizations.) Josh (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Category:Philanthropy exists because it is somewhere to put categories like Category:Philanthropists‎. Which wouldn't work in Category:Charity or Category:Charitable organizations. As philanthropists aren't charities or organizations. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that substantial restructuring is required for the content of these categories. I am seeing a mix of images of logos, publications, and events/activities, each of which should be its own subcategory of thing. BD2412 T 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Thanks for your contributions. Please do not merge, keep both. By the way that was not the initial question or demand but : what is the difference ? Please be aware that
charity is a christian precept (Marc 12:30-31) and virtue ;
philanthropy is the moral principle of those showing unselfish solidarity.
Both are altruistic human behaviours.
I removed Cat:Atruism from Cat:Philanthropy = Cat:Altriusm was/is already parent cat of Philanthropy.
I removed Cat:Charitable organizations and Cat:Philanthropy from Cat:Social economy = they have no economic objectives
I added : Cat:Non-profit organizations to both of them
Please revoke if you do not agree. I suggest
Cat:Foundations (organizations) should not figure under Philanthropic orgaanizations. Please remove. Thank you.
There are lots of other things to do (wikidatas need correction, interwikis have erroneous translations... ) Kind regards, --Bohème (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support Bohème. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word charity may have its origin in Christianity...
But nowadays there're things like Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation, Category:Buddhist charities...
Here's my suggestion:
Category:Philanthropic organizations and Category:Charities redirect to Category:Charitable organizations.
Category:Charitable organizations is a subcat of Category:Social economy (Umbrella term for companies that have a social objective). Roy17 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antique radios

[edit]

The scope of the category almost completely overlaps with Category:Vacuum tube radios, with the inclusion of far smaller Category:Crystal radios, but also currently including some transistor models (Category:AIWA radio receivers). As more and more ancient brands are revitalized on today's market, their digital products will end up in "antiques" too. This is manageable, but it does not solve the main problem: ill-defined scope of "antiques". While we may all agree that pre-WW2 Category:Cathedral style radios all qualify as "antiques", the 1950s styling is not so obviuos (Example: antique, really?).

Suggestion: merge Category:Antique radios, file by file into Category:Vacuum tube radios, Category:Crystal radios, Category:Transistor radios. Retired electrician (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Antique" is largely meaningless so if we have better alternatives, let's use them. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Retired electrician: No opposition. Do you want to procede with sorting and let me know when it's done? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to go, this will probably take a couple of weeks. I'm not sure that only two votes are sufficient. Retired electrician (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to contributors to category:Polish antique radios: @Artur Andrzej: , @Bin im Garten: , @Wp: . Retired electrician (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Retired electrician I see that enwiki has also en:Antique radio. Maybe we can keep the nominated category? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the beautiful English wikipedia where anything can exist regardless of how poorly sourced. Well, at least they have the (unsourced) definition: "radio receiving set that is collectible because of its age and rarity". This is applicable to practically everything that is not on sale today. The definition is fine for a close group of collectors, but it does not scale up to a worldwide perspective. And, as far as I know, there are no alternatives - in the end, they all default to the individual editors' "I know it when I see it" feeling. Is this 1985 model an antique? Why? Why not? Retired electrician (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree Merge Category:Antique radios into Category:Vacuum tube radios, Category:Crystal radios and Category:Transistor radios. Commons can decide about categories and category names independently from whatever other Wikimedia project, and just focus on which categories are needed for the organization of Common files. And please, give all involved categories good descriptions, with an indication of the period they were produced. JopkeB (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Retired electrician, Themightyquill, and Estopedist1: Perhaps rename this category to Category:History of radio receivers? And then also make Category:Radio productions by decade and Category:Radio productions by year subcategories (although one of the parents is Category:Radio programmes there are only files about radio receivers in it, at least in the sample I saw). --JopkeB (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could if someone wants to sort them by decade. Or we could just delete it after Retired electrician and others with knowledge sort the content into the existing subfolders. But there isn't much to do until they've been removed from this category. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: - done except for Category:Polish antique radios. Retired electrician (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Retired electrician: That can probably be merged up to Category:Radio receivers of Poland. @Wp and Artur Andrzej: Since Category:Antique radios will cease to exist, are you okay if we move everything in Category:Polish antique radios to the (mostly empty) Category:Radio receivers of Poland? -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stations of Sydney Metro

[edit]

While Commons doesn't have a consistent naming scheme for rapid transit/metro/subway station categories, it does consistently avoid using the term 'railway station' for these categories. This makes sense, because, in cities where commuter rail (mainline) and rapid transit networks operate side by side, this would be highly confusing. But this sensible, confusion-reducing practice is being resisted/usurped in Sydney by User:PhilipTerryGraham, who moved categories from.a 'metro station' suffix to a 'railway station, New South Wales' suffix and then a 'railway station, Sydney' suffix. This is entirely inconsistent with other rapid transit systems and makes it difficult to tell at a glance whether the station belongs to the mainline or metro systems. And for what benefit?

Not content with that, ThreeFirstNames then moved 'Category:Metro stations in Sydney' to 'Category:Stations of Sydney Metro' and 'Category:Metro maps of Sydney' to 'Category:Maps of Sydney Metro'. Not only were these changes verging on completely pointless, they also ignore the fact that Australian governments have an irresistible urge to rename things they control (an irresistible urge to rename things seems to be a theme). So by using the brand name of the moment, the categories would have to be renamed every time the government decides it simply cannot live with a name adopted by a predecessor.

Commons also has a tradition of categories adopting what ThreeFirstNames calls the 'service name' of rapid transit lines; Category:M1 Line (Bucharest Metro), Category:Jubilee Line, Category:Shanghai Metro Line 7, Category:Shanghai Metro Pujiang Line etc. But of course Three wanted to do things a different way, adopting a bizarre and almost impenetrably confusing mix of the names for the construction projects to build sections of metro lines and the names of former mainline railways the metro has or will take over. The first metro line will ultimately run from Tallawong to Bankstown; under ThreeFirstNames', um, system, this single line will be divided into four different categories: 'Category:Sydney Metro Northwest', 'Category:Epping to Chatswood railway line', 'Category:Sydney Metro City & Southwest' & 'Category:Bankstown railway line'. If that isn't confusing enough, consider that a section of the Bankstown line will remain part of the mainline network even after the metro opens. So apparently one category will cover both part of a metro line as well as a line of the conventional network. And good luck to the Commons audience trying to figure all this out.

As if to underline the stupidity of Three's approach (for want of a better word), the government has just announced the locations for the stations of Sydney Metro West, an entirely new line/project. Two of these stations serve suburbs that already have (actual) railway stations (Olympic Park and Parramatta), but the metro stations will not form part of the same complex as the existing railway stations. These new stations could and should be categorised as 'Olympic Park metro station' and 'Parramatta metro station', but we should shudder to think about what sort of lunacy Three might come up with to sandbank its own creation.

So...

  • Metro stations should not be categorised using 'railway station' in the name, in common with Commons convention.
  • The Sydney Metro brand name should be avoided where possible, as it is almost certain to change at some point.
  • While government renaming hijinks mean the 'service name' is likely to change fairly often (and will definitely change for the current line once the extension to Bankstown opens) using it is consistent with standard Commons practice for rapid transit systems, is the name more readily identifiable by the public and is much less confusing than the absolute mess ThreeFirstNames is trying to enforce. 202.159.171.246 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@202.159.171.246: Please understand that Epping and Chatswood are railway stations that combine both the Sydney Metro and Sydney Trains services in one building [1][2], and that the case will be the same for Martin Place, Central, Sydenham, and Bankstown – they are not separate stations segregated from one another [3][4][5][6]. It wouldn't make sense to treat them as separate stations when they clearly aren't. I tried raising a discussion months ago about names for the physical railway lines at Category talk:Sydney Metro Northwest but there hasn't been a response, so it's unfair to put the blame on me for the status quo. One should also note that the Bankstown railway line will continue to exist in its near-entirety after the Metro opens, apart from a few metres of concrete in Bankstown splitting it in half circa 2024. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting response. No explanation as to why the current situation isn't horrendously confusing or why Sydney should ignore Commons naming convention. No suggestion for the Parramatta/SOP separate stations issue.
Please understand that creating new metro categories that separate media of the post-conversion state from media from the pre-conversion state — as done at Epping, Chatswood and the other ex-ECRL stations — makes for cleaner categorisation and provides a simple way to evaluate what was captured before or after the conversion. It's far more logical than creating one category for the platforms serving the inner tracks at Chatswood while leaving the platforms serving the outer tracks in the parent category(!). As previously mentioned, Category:Partick railway station includes a dedicated subcategory for the subway platforms. And while it's true that "Sydney is not Glasgow", that two separate cities are not in fact one and the same has nothing to do with coming up with a good way to categorise media files on Commons.
It's completely nonsensical to suggest the Bankstown line will remain opened in its (very near) entirety when one part of the line will form part of another line, while the other part will continue to form part of the state/national network. And there is "a few metres of concrete", i.e. a physical barrier, separating the sections of the supposedly unified line. The difference is pretty simple: Can you theoretically operate a train from Campsie to Dubbo, Canberra, Melbourne or Darwin today? Yes. Will you theoretically be able to operate a train from Campsie to Dubbo, Canberra, Melbourne or Darwin once the metro opens? No. Will you theoretically be able to operate a train from Birrong to Dubbo, Canberra, Melbourne or Darwin once the metro opens? Yes, because Birrong is on the section that will remain part of the main rail network. Unlike Campsie. Will you be advocating that (most of) the Carlingford line will continue to exist after the Parramatta Light Rail opens? After all that project is replacing one electrified, standard gauge, railed system with another, which seems to be more than enough to satisfy your criteria of 'still a regular railway'. 124.170.194.240 19:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just become aware of this discussion. {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Australian_and_New_Zealand_stations)] was prepared on the basis that at least in Sydney all stations would include "railway station" in the name including the Metro station. However in the last few weeks it has become apparent that in the case of Parramatta and Sydney Olympic Park will have separate rail and metro stations and on that basis separate "metro station" articles were prepared (not by me) and that has been covered in the above draft naming convention (Fleet Lists).2001:8003:2C27:DC00:E16B:3745:8357:2932 08:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naming conventions are only useful when they are relevant, and it seems there is a perfectly valid justification for the change. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2019/10&oldid=826522955"