Category:Shoulder marks

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Yefreytor shoulder straps.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Shoulder loops.

General question: How to handle this category? I created this category according to en:Shoulder mark and en:Epaulette. It could be categorized under Category:Parts of uniforms. BUT: There is also the Category:Military rank insignia. Maybe 80% or 90% of the images there are shoulder marks, other are Shoulder sleeve insignia‎ or Collar patches. But does it make sence to put all the Military rank insignia which are shoulder marks in Category:Military shoulder marks? The result will be an overgrowded category. A solution could be a subcategorization by country (Category:Military shoulder marks by country). But with Category:Military rank insignia by country we have then 2 nearly similar trees!? (see also: Category:Badges of rank) W like wiki (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear W like wiki! My offer: Category:Shoulder marks → (redirect) → Category:Shoulder straps. Please see classification: ja:肩章 (Shoulder knot, Shoulder board, Shoulder cord and ect.). —Niklitov (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Niklitov, thank you for your proposal, as I understand shoulder straps and shoulder marks are two different things (A shoulder mark is a flat cloth sleeve worn on the shoulder strap ^en-wiki) I changed it in the japanese artikel, hope it s correkt.

I think the solution of the problem above could be to keep just real photos of Shoulder marks in this category (aspect of beeing part of a uniform) and the symbols under the Category:Military rank insignia. What you think? --W like wiki (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear W like wiki: I renamed Category:Gefreiter_shoulder_straps to Category:Gefreiter shoulder mark. Right? — Niklitov (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear W like wiki and JuTa! I ask to the professionals of uniformology for help me and support our discussion. I was answered by Alexey Borisovich Stepanov, Deputy Chief Editor of Old Zeughaus (magazine). New name for the category: Shoulder boards. Can I create Category:Shoulder boards for Special:ListFiles/Polygon_v, etc.? Оffer: Category:Shoulder straps → (redirect) → Category:Shoulder boards. Good? — Niklitov (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea of shoulder marks, boards, straps, whatever.... --JuTa 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Found on the site Shoulder straps. I think so: Category:Shoulder boards → (redirect) → Category:Shoulder straps. "Shoulder mark" we don't use. Ok? Can we close the discussion? — Niklitov (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thx you all! My conclusion and proposal:

Category:shoulder insignia:

• orientation from shoulder to neck:
  • pulled over shoulder straps >> Category:Shoulder loops, sometimes called Category:Shoulder marks or mistakenly just epaulettes
  • attached with one or two small fabric straps which are part of the jacket or shirt: a good category name missing yet
    • soft material >> Category:Military shoulder straps
    • firm material >> Category:Shoulder boards
      • firm material with fringe or similar >> Category:Epaulettes
• orientation from rear to front >> Category:Attentes
• around the shoulder, dont know how they are attached?
  • soft material >> Category:Schwalbennester
  • firm material >> Category:Spaulder^{(Found some better sources (see below), review has to be done.--W like wiki good to know 13:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC))}

What do you think? I allready started with recategorization but you can change again if you disagree. --W like wiki ^{good to know} 06:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The splitting into

• Category:Non-military shoulder boards
• Category:Non-military shoulder marks

is maybe too much? --W like wiki ^{good to know} 08:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

W like wiki, thank you very much for your answers! This is a great and interesting analysis! I need some time to think and consult with uniformologists.) — Niklitov (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Niklitov: Any further thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Difficult issue. I will try to give examples:

• 
  ‘Epaulette’ (ru: '‘эполет’), components and structure
• 
  ‘Shoulder straps’ (?) for Junior Unteroffizier of rowing crew of Russian Life Guards Keksholm Regiment (re-enlistee 2nd category)
• 
  '‘'Civil braided shoulder marks’ (?) (ru: ‘плетёный погон’) of the Russian Empire (1876—1885). District secretary (Gubernsky sekretar) shoulder board (?) of Foresters' Corps (Foresters' Dept, Ministry of State Property) (1898—1904).
• 
  C — ‘shoulder braids’ (ru: наплечные плетёнки) for boad crew of Chinese Eastern Railway Shipping Company
• 
  ‘Toggle’ (?) (little shoulder straps) or ‘pogonchik’ (ru: ‘погончик’) for Red Navy man (Krasnoflotets) of Caspian Flotilla Coastal Services
• 
  ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’, контр-погон?)
• 
  ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’, контр-погон?)
• 
  ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: Поперечный погон или ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’)
• 
  ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: Поперечный погон или ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’)
• 
  A ‘vitushka’ / coil / curl (?) (ru: Витушка) of an Aiguillette on the right shoulder of the ceremonial form of an artillery conductor. On the left shoulder - shoulder strap (ru:Витушка аксельбанта на правом плече парадной формы артиллерийского кондуктора. На левом плече-погон.)

— Niklitov (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Next week we’ll try to discuss here: Unoformology Forum → Uniformological concepts and terms. — Niklitov (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Niklitov: did you get some answers? I made some reworks of my older conclusion obove and added this to Category:Shoulder insignia as a kind of introduction:

PS.: I think here we can see attentes, but not sure sure.^{(see next post)}
Cheers --W like wiki ^{good to know} 06:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Complete review has to be done! I found some better and official sources:

• US Army – Guide to the Wear and Appearance of Uniforms and Insignia (pdf)
• US Navy – Uniform Regulations
• Royal Army – dress regulations (all ranks) (pdf)
• Royal Navy – Officers and Ratings (pdf)
• French Navy – Instruction N° 1 relative au port de l’uniforme dans la marine (Instruction No. 1 on wearing the uniform in the navy, pdf)

PS.: So according to US Army (page 190/191) here we can see shoulder straps. --W like wiki ^{good to know} 12:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Graphics

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/07/Category:Illustrations by work.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/08/Category:Engraved illustrations of people.

The category description points to en:Graphics which defines graphics as "visual images or designs on some surface, such as a wall, canvas, screen, paper, or stone to inform, illustrate, or entertain. (...) Examples are photographs, drawings, line art, graphs, diagrams, typography, numbers, symbols, geometric designs, maps, engineering drawings, or other images." Unless I've missed something, that's all images. This category, however, is a sub-category of both Category:Illustrations and Category:Images. I'd either like a more specific definition, or a redirect to Category:Images. Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I also agree, but the description you give is not there. I interpret "Graphics" much more narrowly than the definition you quote (which is effectively for all images but not for all graphics).

Anyway, as it is hard to draw a deadline for graphics, my opinion is that this category should be directly merged into Images (but there's a lot of images stored directly here that should rather go to "Uncategorized images". But the subcategories listed here (Charts) are pertinent for inclusion in "Images", with some adjustments (and there should be differences between computer generated graphics, including most charts, and artistic creations, which may be computer-aided but finalized by lot of artistic choices, and handrawn graphics, which in fact can be recategorized as paintings, caligraphy...).

This category is currently a real mess mixing in fact almost all types of contents we can find on Commons (except audio files, but including PDFs and scanned images, photos, and animations). Its pertinence is really extremely low the way it is structured now and used (because many people have very different visions about how they understand the term). verdy_p (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added the CFD template to Category:Visualization and Category:Illustrations as they seem similarly ambiguous. Images of illustrations taken from books is clear enough, but does anything that illustrates (or could illustrate) an idea fit in Category:Illustrations ? en:Visualizations is just a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• {{O}} Photos are images, but not graphics.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying graphics are not images, or photographs are not graphics? The proposal was to potentially do away with Category:Graphics and replace it with Category:Images. That wouldn't put photographs in Category:Graphics but it would but graphics in Category:Images. Any photographs should all be sub-categories of Category:Photographs anyway, so they wouldn't be directly affected. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I was writing off the cuff, sorry. Looking deeper, these two categories are 11+ years old. They and their descendants combined contain the majority of our files. Before we impose the mess that is Category:Graphics on Category:Images and insult all the graphic artists, I think we should have a wider announcement of this Cfd at COM:VP.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I think a better definition of "Graphics" would be to exclude photographs... AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill, Jeff G., Verdy p, and AnonMoos:

• "Graphics" are visual presentations which are on a surface. (en:Graphics)

• Photographs are graphics. The very word photograph is "photo" (light) + "graph" (graphic). A photograph is created by light on a surface.
• Videos likewise are graphics, in that they consist of a visual presentation on a surface.

• "Images" are artifacts relying on visual perceptions. (en:Images)

• Sculptures are images rendered in three dimensions, not necessarily depicted on a surface, and so therefore are an image that is not a graphic.
• Images formed without use of a surface, such as mental or holographic images, would likewise not be graphics.

• As far as I can figure, all "graphics" are "images", but not all "images" are "graphics".
• For the purposes of categorizing by media type, there is no discernable difference between the two...i.e. I cannot think of a media type that we can host on Commons that would qualify as one and not the other, since Commons files which display visual information are artifacts and are displayed on a surface.
• For the purposes of categorizing by topic, we may indeed have graphics which depict images that are not graphics. For instance, a photograph of a statue would be a graphic (photograph) of an image that not a graphic (statue).
• In common modern colloquial usage, "graphic" has a more restictive connotation, as being an image in which the contents are artificial, such as a drawing, information graphic, or computer-generated image of some sort. Photographs and videos are not commonly considered "graphics" in this context.
• In common modern colloquial usage, "image" is also more restrictive as generally being understood as a 'snap shot' single frame presentation such as a photograph or picture (or even a still from a video). Sculpture and videos are not generally referred to as an "image" in non-technical usage.

It strikes me that would first need to decide whether we are going to go by the technically correct definitions of "graphic" and "image" or the modern colloquial usage of these terms, as that has a big impact on how we should determine the content and structure of both categories. The technically correct definitions lead to a much clearer structure and definition, but I think the vast majority of users will approach these categories with a colloquial context, so I really am not sure which is the right path. Thoughts on which would be better to implement? Josh (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: What about a new Category:Visual files, for all files with a visual aspect (not audio)?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Maps of the politics of Serbia

Merge into Category:Political maps of Serbia. Zoupan (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree because contents of these two categories are very different. While category "Political maps of Serbia" shows maps of actual territory of Serbia, category "Maps of the politics of Serbia" is rather focused on political life in Serbia, i.e. elections, proposed territorial units, etc. PANONIAN (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Election maps of Serbia‎ is a sub-category, and there are several subdivisions-cats. The other articles all use Political maps, see Category:Political maps by country.--Zoupan (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

But look subcategories in "Category:Political maps by country". All maps there are actual political maps, not maps of proposed territorial units. If you want to change name of category "Maps of the politics of Serbia" there is no problem, but in that case you have to come up with new category where maps which showing proposed administrative unit would fit. They do not fit in category with name "Political maps of Serbia". PANONIAN (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. A sub-category of proposed units could easily be created.--Zoupan (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)