Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11

Category:Cumbria in the 1960s

What does "Cumbria in the 1960s" mean for a county that didn't exist until 1973? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The same as Category:England in the 7th century ? It's anachronistic but it's very useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
But "England in the 7th century" is filling a vacuum, when there is no clear alternative description. But "Cumbria in the 1960s" is being used instead to displace a more appropriate use of "Lancashire in the 1960s" (presumably Westmoreland and Cumberland too). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
So you're suggesting a move to Category:Lancashire in the 1960s Category:Westmoreland in the 1960s and Category:Cumberland in the 1960s ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I'm almost surprised we don't have Category:Lancashire in the 1960s already. We can't avoid that one.
There is some point when it's anachronistic to have county categories outside the existence of that category (Wales has recently had a load of 18th century engravings from the National Library). So why not tie this to their actual creation date? Or are we going to put Wordsworth into "18th century in Cumbria" too? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
No opposition, Andy Dingley, please feel to move/rename this and the subcategories appropriately. Let me know when you're done, and I can close. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Stale discussion. What is the situation here, user:Andy Dingley. Is this CFD solved?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley, Themightyquill, and Estopedist1: See the newer CFD on United States in the 16th century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:1973 in Cumbria. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historic houses in Turkey

Another cat by User:Pivox. I will write below. E4024 (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Pivox is known (at least by me :) to open -sometimes- unnecessary, or even "absurd" (in the good sense) cats. However, this time it is a good cat. Because if there is a Category:Historic houses in the United Kingdom, we must also have this cat. It is also good that the same user has opened the Category:Historic houses in Turkey by city, because we have many historic houses in many cities of Turkey. This also reminds us of the fact that the UK cat I mentioned above, as well as the Turkish cat, do not have a mother cat for "countries". I'm sure we have many similar houses in many countries (too many in the States), even we've got Category:Jordan Historical Houses! Therefore we need a "mother cat". Let's leave it here as a "work-to-do". OTOH, User:Pivox has added Category:Castles in Turkey as a "see also" cat to the Category:Historic houses in Turkey! If instead of that one, he had added Category:Old houses in Turkey that I, myself, invented, the said cat by Pivox would not be filled with unnecessary "old house" pics. For example User:Sakhalinio could have added my oldies cat to File:Tirilye Bursa 20170821.jpg instead of "historic houses"... What kind of historic house would be in that shape, no protection, it's about to fall down! If we return to Category:Historic houses in Turkey, it is full of this kind of absurd files. Indeed what we should add in there could be (for example in the same Bursa, Sakhalinio, Başak, the house in Mudanya where the Armistice was signed) or in Istanbul the one where the Ayastefanos Treaty was signed, or all those beautiful houses in Anatolia (Samsun, Sivas, Erzurum, Trabzon, Diyarbakır, etc) that had the honour and pleasure to host Mustafa Kemal Atatürk! (Of course the house-museum of Atatürk in Selanik should also be in a "historic houses" cat. Resume:It's good to make cats, but we should also feed them, with the right food. Now I'm going to add the Pembe Köşk to this good cat by Pivox. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Stale discussion. Whenever possible, we should avoid categories like <Historic houses>, <Historic buildings>, because "historic" is ambigious term. However, we still have more than 130 categories with the name <Historic houses/buildings>. The parent Category:Historic houses by country is not well-developed--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@E4024, Pivox, and Estopedist1: I support deleting "historic" and "historical" categories for being ambiguous. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@Afifa Afrin, Elkost, Walter Giannetti, and Hirho: , since you've been working with this tree. A definition would be useful. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I support Sbb1413's proposal as these adjectives ("historic" and "historical") are ambiguous. --Elkost (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Vedute antiche e moderne (Monaldini)

Category:Vedute antiche e moderne (Monaldini) and Category:Vedute antiche e moderne le piú interessanti della cittá di Roma apparently are about the same book, but from different sources. The categories should be renamed to reflect their distinction in an understandable way. Alternatively, both cateories should be joined into a single one. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's the same book, I don't see the need to have different categories depending on which archive it the book came from. All the images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection will individually belong to Category:Images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection. The book category can remain in Category:Books with images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection because it will contain images from that collection, even if not all of them will be from that source? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd generally hesitate to put (or keep) a whole category B in a category A if only some of B`s members belong to A. For example, although Category:Roger Bacon holds some books, it should not be below Category:Books. Instead, if there are only few books, each one should be categorized individually below Category:Books (by year, etc.); if there are many books (Category:Isaac Newton is an example for this), they should go in an own intersection subcategory (Category:Books by Isaac Newton‎, via Category:Writings of Isaac Newton‎), which is below both, Category:Isaac Newton and Category:Books by author. - In case Category:Vedute antiche e moderne (Monaldini) and Category:Vedute antiche e moderne le piú interessanti della cittá di Roma, there are 16 and 50 members, respectively, which is pretty much. However, since I consider scan source information to be far less important than e.g. the distinction "Portraits of XXX" vs. "Books by XXX" (not everybody might share this opinion), categorizing each file individually by scan source would be ok for me. - To sum up: joining both categories would be fine for me. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: My only concern is that this might apply to all of the sub-categories of Category:Books with images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection. As I see it, our options are
  1. potentially create Category:Images from BookX from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection for each of them,
  2. remove all those book sub-categories from Category:Books with images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection and put all the images in one big unsorted category
  3. acknowledge that all of those books categories do contain (some) images from the BLMC, albeit not exclusively, and leave things as they are.
None of those sounds good to me, honestly, but I don't see any way around it. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: You are right, this is difficult. If I understood you right, e.g. Category:Australia (1873) by BOOTH is below Category:Books with images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection, because some (but probably not all) of the former's 122 images came from BLMC. That is, Category:Books with images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection is not intended for categorization by source, but for, say, categorization by possible source.
I already find it hard to understand the purpose of categorization by source (e.g. "scanned from the book in the XXX library"), but I could imagine that an experienced librarian or digitalization expert may have good reasons for this. However, categorization by possible source doesn't make any sense at all. Why should anybody look for a book that contains somewhere a BLMC-uploaded image (amongst images from other sources) in it? -
As a consequence, I'd tend to your suggestion 2. (only categorizing individual images in a renamed Category:Media from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection), combined with 1. (categorizing a book category in Category:Media from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection only if all is contents come from BLMC). However, I'm not quite sure about this suggestion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Trying to wake up this stale discussion. Added a notification of this CfD to Category:Books with images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection. I realize the following does not address the original question that started this CfD but it does address the one that has had the most discussion here.

If I understand correctly that, effectively, putting a category in Category:Books with images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection just means "some of the content of this category is images from British Library Mechanical Curator collection" that is not at all the way we normally handle source information. May I presume that the individual files in question are correctly categorized in Category:Images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection? In that case, I'd just get rid of Category:Books with images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection entirely, it's really hard to see what value it adds. It seems to come always from Template:BL1million bookcat. I have no problem with the template, I just see no advantage in having it add a category.

Alternatively, if there is some reason to keep that, it should be a hidden category.

As to the original question here: can't we create a parent cat that would embrace both Category:Vedute antiche e moderne (Monaldini) and Category:Vedute antiche e moderne le piú interessanti della cittá di Roma, so that any useful distinction between them is preserved, while underlining that they are essentially the same work? - Jmabel ! talk 01:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:"Constantin Diaconovici Loga" Highschool, Timișoara

Renamed from Category:Colegiul Național „Constantin Diaconovici Loga” din Timișoara. Given that it's an official entity with an official name, I don't think we should be translating the title. Moreover, I don't think "Highschool" is even a legitimate translation for Colegiul Național. I would propose Category:Colegiul Național „Constantin Diaconovici Loga” or Category:Colegiul Național „Constantin Diaconovici Loga”, Timișoara as per the official website. Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In Romania Colegiu Național (National College) is a pompous title that means "very good highschool" (with a baccalaureate graduation of over about 85%). Only Colegiu (College) means "good highschool" (with a baccalaureate graduation of over about 70%). Liceu means "poor highschool" :D (with a baccalaureate graduation about 50%), but all have the same curriculum, have grades IX-XII and are finalized with a baccalaureate exam. None is the first step of higher education, such as US colleges.
I understand that the English version is preferred here for categories. Virtually all institutions in Romania have English versions of their official names. Should we rename all these categories to the Romanian version? Should we rename Category:Politehnica University of Timișoara to Category:Universitatea Politehnica Timișoara (It's official Romanian name) ? There are hundreds of such categories. --Turbojet (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Categories#Category_names is quite clear: "Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form." In this case, I don't see that the school has a clearly established English variant. Highschool is clearly an ad hoc translation. Whether it's pompous or not is hardly relevant. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
How did you not find the english version of the name? Well, the English version is Category:National College "Constantin Diaconovici Loga" , all graduates use this version in their Europass CVs. Please rename. But I maintain my view that here this name is misleading ("ambiguous" as they say here) for English speakers. --Turbojet (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
A google search revealing facebook pages and some individual translations does not demonstrate an established English variant. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course. The English version is demonstrated by paper documents that do not appear on the internet. Not Google is the ultimate source of documentation. Should I contact the director to send you an official statement, signed? I can do that. Via OTRS, or how else? --Turbojet (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
It's really worth it to you, to go to that effort, just to have the commons category name in English? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Not I am the one who wants to be in English. When addressing the world, all Romanian educational institutions use English exclusively. All scientific papers and official documents for international cooperation are drafted in this language. The purpose is for the partners to understand what it is about, not to look at the texts in Romanian without understanding anything, as I do not understand anything when I look at a text in Finnish or any other language that is not in use international. And the fact that you have not found on web is due to the fact that in Romania the pre-university education is managed by the state, the distribution in schools is centralized and based on home address and school performance, it is not the option of the pupils or the parents, so there is no need for information on the net. Web pages of schools are made out of obligation, too often only in Romanian and are not updated with years. Universities have some autonomy and interest in attracting students, so more information is available on the net. --Turbojet (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Turbojet: enwiki article is under the name en:C. D. Loga National College (Timișoara) (full name Constantin Diaconovici Loga National College), respective Commons categories would be Category:C. D. Loga National College or Category:Constantin Diaconovici Loga National College--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note that in Romanian terminology, "college" means "top high school", not "university college". The term "college" with the meaning of university education does not exist in Romanian, as a result the term "college" is misleading for English speakers. I agree that you put what category you want, but you will assume the meaning of the category. I did my duty to explain to you. --Turbojet (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The name "National College", "College" or "High School" of the same school may change from year to year depending on whether the school meets the performance criteria or not. At the beginning of each school year, the Ministry of Education gives an order on how to name the school in that year. As a result, the title of the articles and the names of the categories may need to be flipped frequently. --Turbojet (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
From the article, it seems to have been a national college since at least 1999. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is a very performant high school. As high school, it meets the criteria to be called "National College" in Romanian. But it's not a college. --Turbojet (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Artwork by unknown artists in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Unknown painters from Germany.

This is to discuss the subcats here. Looked at by themselves, many of the categories seem improperly named, and none of the names specify "Metropolitan Museum of Art". If they are all for things in the that museum, shouldn't they say so? For example, it seems that a better name for Category:Anonymous, 16th century‎ would be Category:Anonymous 16th century works in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (or maybe "16th-century" with a hyphen, I'm not sure). Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support Your suggestion is exactly right, though yes, use a hyphen as "16th-century" is a compound adjective in this case. I'm not sure what you'll do with Category:Anonymous Workshop, British‎ or Category:Noriega. Category:The Master of the Castle Mark‎ could be moved to an appropriate artist category with Category:Works by the Master of the Castle Mark in the Metropolitan Museum of Art as a sub-category. Same for Category:The Veneto - Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 Support Sounds reasonable. --Taterian (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in months, Auntof6. I'd say go ahead with this whenever you want. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I've done some of this, though some I'm not sure how to handle (late 19th-century? 15th-century British artists?) and some will likely change when consensus is reached at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Unknown painters from Germany. Take a look to see if you want to make any additional changes, and then we can close? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Oh, I'm so sorry for not following up on this and thanks for taking care of some of them. It looks like there are three categories left to deal with, the ones with a range of centuries. I'm not inclined to have a category with a range of centuries like that unless it's defined that way by the museum. Let me see if I can find out if that's the case. If not, I'll figure out how to rename/recategorize those. How does that sound? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: No problem at all. My guess would be that those categories are so named because the museum attributed the art to "Anonymous artist, mid-X century to early-Y century" or whatever. I'm not sure what to do either. I assume they are not all referring to the same artist. The other issue is Category:Anonymous, British, 15th century. We have no category tree for art of the united kingdom before the 18th century (now subject to a different discussion). We have no category tree for British until Great Britain was formed in the 18th century. Can we assume it's from England rather than Scotland or Wales? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Polack District

The word "Polack" is a racial slur in English usage. The official name of the district is "Polatsk District" and that is the usage elsewhere. The change from that usage to Polack is gratuitous and offensive. Billofocham (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Several subcats have the same issue. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to tell how deal with false positive in cases when English text is infused with words on different languages based on Latin alphabet, instead of using transliterations. But this is common practice as far as I could tell from Commons categories and English Wikipedia. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The change is consistent with other moves of categories there - what is the naming convention used? There's "District" in English but the name apparently not. According to the English version of the government website (http://polotsk.vitebsk-region.gov.by/index.php/en) it's Polotsk. Peter James (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Stale discussion. @Billofocham, Auntof6, EugeneZelenko, and Peter James: In Commons, almost all (except three categories) categories use the name "Polack District", but enwiki is under the name en:Polotsk District. Usually we follow enwiki, but renaming of about 40 categories consisting of "Polack District", sounds a bit irrational?--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Polotsk is transliteration from Russian. Polack is Belarusian state standard of transliteration of Cyrillic (Полацк) names to Latin (actually, it's mentioned in w:en:Polotsk). In such transliteration c is sound like ts (same as in Polish language), so there no racial slur in this case, since this is not about English language. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:People of the United Kingdom by gender

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Adolescent girls by country.

I will explain below. E4024 (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  • We have so many "girls, boys, teenagers, women, old men etc" categories that I noticed a huge country like the United Kingdom with so many people files in Commons had no "Male people of the United Kingdom" or "Female people of the United Kingdom" cats! And I opened them! (Please don't thank me. :) Doing similar things, all off us in his/her own way, dividing people among necessary/unnecessary age groups, we have forgotten to make the basic cats for "people by gender" or is it I that cannot see that? Those people who change age groups every now and then for peoples of all the world then should not forget one or the other country out of "by country" cats. Now I invite them to make the "by gender" cats for some 200 countries and also complete the age/etc divisions for all countries. Now according to the cureent situation -for example- my country almost had no young people/by country cat until half an hour ago. I'm lost. All those young men and women that in most cases have articles in WPs and are famous for being young and beautiful or handsome (I mean models, singers, TV actors etc) suddenly were left out of the scene. I know I'm writing conflicting things because I'm confused of so many cats. What I want to ask people is please not to leave aside any country (not referring to Niue or similar low-population paradises) when you create "by country" classifications. OTOH, today I added the picture of a couple of youngsters from Azerbaijan and felt the necessity to make a cat each for "Adolescent girls" and Adolescent boys" OF Azerbaijan! Then I noticed all similar cats were "IN". I met these youngsters in Ankara and they are "from" Azerbaijan, but not "in" Azerbaijan, living in Turkey. How do we tackle these issues? I believe instead of "of" or "in" we could use "from", stressing the nationality. Please note that there are several problems in the vicinity of the talk I opened. (Oh, yes, I've seen similar discussions, discussions that go nowhere because very few people participate and then we have "small" consensuses that dry away like small streams in summertime.) Criticise me, but contribute also; please let's altogether bring a fresh, agreed standardization to the "people" cats. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Please also see: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Adolescent girls by country. --E4024 (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I think "Of" is an appropriate designation.--Sanya3 (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Adolescent girls by country

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:People of the United Kingdom by gender.

All the national cats in this mother cat should better use "of" instead of "in". We have cats for "Girls of" this or that country, "Women of" this or that country. Then why do we have here "Adolescent girls in" this or that country? E4024 (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there any any particular reason why "Adolescent girls by country" and "Adolescent boys by country" both uses completely different age definitions? I would like to for both to use the same definitions for the sake of convience. @Sanya3: --Trade (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@E4024, Sanya3, and Trade: We might use "[people] of [country]" for people native to the country (citizens and expats), and "[people] in [country]" for people in a country (native or not). See the subcats of Aircraft by country (of) and Aircraft by country of location (in). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:AntiAircraft units of Russia

duplicate Category:Air Defence Troops of the Russian Ground Forces. It is necessary to remove. Nickel nitride (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

These do not seem the same, for these reasons:
  1. Units are organizations. Troops are individual people.
  2. It seems possible that there are air defence troops/units that are not anti-aircraft.
  3. Could there be Russian anti-aircraft units that are part of something other than the Russian Ground Forces? I'm not familiar with how the Russian military is organized, but I believe that some countries have anti-aircraft abilities aboard ships, which would not be ground forces.
I also do not think you should have removed entries from this category before the discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Auntof6 is right. Nickel nitride, the structure in Russian Armed Forces categories have a flaw. See Category:Ground Forces of Russia - there's a lot of units in that category, and at the same time there's a Symbols subcategory, etc.
It seems obvious for there should be something like:

Ground Forces of Russia

  • Symbols of Ground Forces of Russia
    • Flags of ..
    • Emblems of ..
    • etc
  • Units and formations of Ground Forces of Russia
    • 102nd military base‎
    • 11th Separate Guards Engineer Brigade‎
    • etc
  • People of Ground Forces of Russia
    • etc
  • etc
--VoidWanderer (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Auntof6, in Russian Armed Forces 4 parts of anti-aircraft forces: Air Defence Troops of the Russian Ground Forces, Air and Missile Defense Troops‎ of the Aerospace Forces + AA-units in the Air Force and Coastal Troops of the Navy. — Nickel nitride (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Relocate in Category:Military units and formations of the Air Defence Troops of the Russian Ground Forces. — --Nickel nitride (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Iranian ceremonies

Ceremonies? Are we referring to celebrations? What we call "bayram" in Turkish? What ceremonies? Protocol? E4024 (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

  • (After three years w/o any comments from anyone) What is the relation of this cat to Category:Ceremonies in Iran; do we need both at the same time? --E4024 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Stale discussion. Eg we have Category:Jewish ceremonies which is redirected to Category:Jewish rituals. We have also Category:Ceremonies by ethnic group. Also if the nominated category would be merged into Category:Ceremonies in Iran, this would be a good solution.--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

There could be Polish ceremony hold in Iran and there can Iranian ceremony happening abroad Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)