Wikimore

This page is for open CFD discussions started in November 2016.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/11.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2016-11.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache

Summary of open discussions

Current requests

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:Missing persons

What is the difference with its mother category "Disappeared people"? SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The categories don't seem to indicate much difference. In common use, at least where I've heard the terms, "disappeared" implies that the person was made to disappear, possible kidnapped or killed, often for political reasons (see en:Forced disappearance). "Missing" just means that their whereabouts are unknown. As such, I think disappeared should be under missing instead of the other way around as it is now. Since we can't usually be sure which category a person fits into until/unless they are found, I think the categories could be combined. I do note, however, that enwiki has Category:Forced disappearances, although they have guidelines as to when a person can be categorized there. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess that forced disappearance might relate to, i.e., the desaparecidos during the junta in Argentina (1976-82). -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There's already a category for Category:Forced disappearance. I'd suggest we redirect Category:Disappeared people to Category:Missing persons (or Category:Missing people?). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to categorize the unknown. I think, however, our tree should look like this:

Category:Disappearance / Category:People by status

Category:Missing persons (or Category:Missing people ?)

Category:Kidnapping (or Category:Kidnappings ?)

Category:Forced disappearance (or Category:Forced disappearances ?)

I've already created/moved Category:Missing in action‎, Category:Missing air passengers‎, Category:Missing aviators‎, Category:Fugitives‎, Category:People lost at sea‎ as sub-categories of Category:Missing persons. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this discussion is closed. "Missing persons" is standard English language in the UK and Ireland. Certainly a division such as "forced disappearance" is valid because "missing" is taken to mean missing without information. I am not sure what is standard in American English. Apologies for not responding, I was living without electricity owing to an adventure/misadventure for some time. I had glanced at the notice since, but assumed the discussion would be closed by and didn't look. ~ R.T.G 20:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Guantanamo captives' documents by serial number

The name of this category isn't accurate, because the subcats are not by serial number. I'm looking for input (here, in this discussion) on whether the category should be renamed (to what, I don't know), or if the contents should just be moved up to Category:Guantanamo captives' documents. Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the subcats should be moved up. The category (as named) seems useful, though, so it should probably be kept and properly populated with categories for each serial number. BMacZero (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Auntof6 is suggesting a flattening of the hierarchy. I would regard that as an unnecessary informationectomy.

I am not wedded to the current category names, but, in this subhierarchy, the individual files are organized by serial number. Were you stating that they weren't?

OARDEC, the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants, conducted annual status reviews from 2004 through 2008. 572 captives had a first review. Only 350-400 men had a second review, in 2005, as some had been released, and some had been cleared for release. By 2008 only 100 reviews took place, even though the prison still held approximately 350 men. Approximately ten of them weren't reviewed as they faced charges before the Guantanamo military commissions. And approximately 240 weren't reviewed, as they were still being held in spite of being cleared for release.

So, the allegation memos for those hearings constitute close to 1500 individual documents. OARDEC was also compelled to release the transcripts from hearing where the captive was in attendance. Approximately two thirds of the first hearings were attended, but by 2008 attendance was only three percent. Anyhow, another 600 documents. In 2005 and 2006 OARDEC published the heavily redacted recommendations of the review panels, but just for the individuals recommended for release, that is another 300 documents. In 2007 and 2008 OARDEC published all the recommendations, without regard to whether the recommendation was for release or continued detention -- another 250 documents. Finally, from 2004, OARDEC published 179 habeas dossiers.

So, the flattening of the hierarchy you seem to be recommending? I can't agree that removing one, or several, levels of organization, from over 2000 documents, is a good idea. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the files in the subcats aren't sorted by serial number. I am saying that the subcats in this category aren't grouped or sorted by serial number. For comparison, the subcats in Category:Guantanamo captives' documents by name are grouped by the stated criterion (name). "By serial number" applies to the subcats, but not to this parent cat. The other thing I'd say is that we don't need the "by" designation in a category name just because the contents are sorted a certain way. Using "by" this way causes confusion because it looks like the name of a metacategory, which this isn't. Including "by serial number" in the category names here doesn't do anything that a notice on the category wouldn't do.

I'm also not necessarily suggesting flattening the hierarchy; the alternative is to rename the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila - Manila MRT Line 2 (Magsaysay Boulevard-Jose Laurel Street, A. Lacson Avenue-Mabini Bridge Fly-Over)

Please rename or delete this category. There is no landscape, no scenery, no skyline. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages; I would suggest if it is proper under the rules to take off the words "Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of" and the New Title would be the Remaining phrases; Please kindly Rename if proper under the Rules very sincerely --Judgefloro 15:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)

The remaining phrases can't be the new cat name. The new category name could be 2016 in Sampaloc or 2016 in Santa Mesa or 2016 in Magsaysay Boulevard or 2016 in Jose Laurel Street. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila villages (Manila MRT Line 2 - Legarda - Ramon Magasaysay Fly-Over, Magsaysay Boulevard - Jose Laurel Street - Mabini Bridge Fly-Over - Nagtahan Street)

Please rename or delete this category. There is no landscape, no scenery, no skyline. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages; I would suggest if it is proper under the rules to take off the words "Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of" and the New Title would be the Remaining phrases; Please kindly Rename if proper under the Rules very sincerely --Judgefloro 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)

Category:Landscape-Scenery (Calumpit-Pampanga villages, Hanging footbridges, Calumpit-Pampanga riverbanks, Flood controls, Boats, Grasslands, Trees and Native houses, from Barangay Sapang Bayan)

Please delete this category. The category name is to long and not meaningful. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree: the category name combines too many different things. Those things should not be lost, however; the images should have appropriate categories added. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the messages; I would suggest if it is proper under the rules to take off the words "Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of" and the New Title would be the Remaining phrases; Please kindly Rename if proper under the Rules very sincerely --Judgefloro 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)

@Judgefloro: There is no word "skyline" here. Even removing landscape and scenery wouldn't be enough. There should be separate categories for the dufferent things mentioned (buildings, boats, hanging bridges, etc.) and each file should be in only the categories that fit. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I was amazed by the Sun its red orange burning setting, and I rented a boat after I walked upon the Villages; so I pondered and meditated on how to put all these images into simplicity; I am experiencing problems with my Memory computer and slow download but fast upload internet; as you read in papers Philippines Internet is most expensive but slowest; therefore, these images are inside the Barangay Sapang Bayan; however, due to confluence or confusing boundaries due to election problems and funds problem, the images fit into different barangays that are inside the River areas of Districts upon the Hanging bridge; therefore with all due respect, I could not with all honesty and integrity put one specific Category of which Village this photo is under; I was taking photos not anymore of the Town or province, by the sub-category of Villages or sitios of Barangays of this beautiful town of Calumpit very sincerely, Judgefloro 17:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)

Specifically, the passenger boat starts from the hanging bridge and tours the Calumpit River banks of confusing Barangays and villages that even the natives are confused where and which village owns this or that specific photo; for example, a photo fo the mangroves, trees and the oranges waters or River District Banks, belongs to 2 or 3 Barangays, this is where the problem lies; and then, the photos of the houses, etc. all these belong to Calumpit Barangays and the very sub-category of Sitios or Villages of each Barangays; hence, I have to simplify all these photos lest I commit a grave injustice to Coordinates and GPS or Mapping locations, very sincerely, Judgefloro 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)

Oh, this have been here almost five years without desicison. I suggest that the category could be named like Landscapes of XXXX, where XXXX is the name of the community. --Velma (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Velma: we probably can't rush here. If you see Category:Calumpit it is massively populated with specific categories. To get a proper category name, we probably need user(s) who are familiar with Manila, Philippines stuff--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Painted portraits of kings of Spain by painter

I renamed this category from "Painted portraits of kings of Spain by author" because "painter" is a better term for paintings. However, looking at it, I think we should either rename it or remove/redirect it. It's named like a metacatgory, but doesn't follow the usual use for a metacategory. I would expect a category called "Painted portraits of kings of Spain by painter" to have subcategories like "Painted portraits of kings of Spain by <painter>" and/or "Painted portraits of <individual king of Spain> by painter". Instead, this breaks it down one more level and has categories for individual kings by painter. Also, if you think about it, you could populate this category with every painting of a king of Spain by creating an appropriately-named category. So, I'm not sure we need this category, but if we keep, it should be renamed. Maybe something like "Painted portraits of kings of Spain by king and painter", or "Painted portraits by king of Spain and painter"? Auntof6 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Firtly, the category was worsened by the fact that one sub-category didn't belong (it was for a single painting, so I've removed it) and that some of the categories (<King> by <artist>) are poorly named. That said, I think you have a valid point about it being an awkward fit. The only way to correct it, however, would be to create additional layers of categories that aren't really needed (the ones of the two types you specify above). I'm not sure that's worth the effort and added complexity just to make it perfect. In the mean time, I think we should rename it to follow the style of its parents and its sub-cats: ie. Category:Portrait paintings of kings of Spain by painter (or by artist, given that other discussion...) - Themightyquill (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the additional layers of categories wouldn't be very helpful. I was just trying to imagine what would justify keeping this category. If we keep it with the current content, the title would pretty much mean "portrait paintings of kings of Spain that were created by painters", which would be redundant.

Actually, now that I look at it, I think some of the subcats need to be removed from this category or renamed: the ones that don't specify "portrait paintings". For example, the subcat under Category:Charles II by Claudio Coello is for a painting that shows Charles II, but which isn't a portrait. Similarly with Category:Philip IV by Velazquez: it contains File:Las Meninas mirror detail.jpg, which is a detail showing an indistinct reflection of the king, but can't really be said to be a portrait. If the cat doesn't specify "portrait", it shouldn't be under a portrait painting category. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for removing those two categories if they don't contain portraits. The other categories are essentially "Multiple portrait paintings of the same king of Spain, all painted by the same artist." I can see that, if there are many portrait paintings of a king, it might make sense to sort them according to artist. I'm not sure it's the best way to go about it, but it's not wholly illogical. =) In short, I'm pretty neutral on the existence of this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Stale discussion. @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: to be in the line with parent categories, the category name should be Category:Portrait paintings of Spanish kings by artist--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1 or Category:Portrait paintings of kings of Spain by artist, because I believe there is a preference for not using demonyms. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I agree. Then we should rename also "Category:Portrait paintings of Spanish rulers by artist" to Category:Portrait paintings of rulers of Spain by artist --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1 I would think so. I also think some of the entries in that category should be moved elsewhere because they specify royalty, not rulers specifically. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Ships in Germany on stamps

This category should be deleted. There is a more useful category:Ships on stamps of Germany. On many stamps in this category, one can't even see whether the ship is in Germany or not. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that you can't tell where the ships are. These all seem to be drawings from artists' imaginations, so we can't really say that the ships were in the specified locations at all. I think the "Ships in" categories should be for real ships at times that they were really in the indicated place. Some of the images in this cat and its subcats might qualify, but most probably don't. I propose:

Redirect this cat to Category:Ships on stamps of Germany, and move the files (not the subcats) there (except for any that depict non-German stamps).
Copy the content of each subcat into Category:Ships on stamps of Germany (except for any that depict non-German stamps). Then move the content up to the associated "<Place> on stamps" category (for example, Category:Hamburg on stamps) and delete the subcats or redirect to "<Place> on stamps".
If there were any files of non-German stamps, recategorize them as appropriate.

Those are my thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Stale discussion. @Auntof6: just be bold, and execute your proposal. It is unlike that someone oppose--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:St. James Churches

We have Category:Saint James the Greater churches, Category:Saint James the Less churches etc. There is no point in creating another unspecific “St. James Churches” category. AFBorchert (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There may be a point, which I may have resolved by recategorizing this category. Category:Saint James the Greater churches and Category:Saint James the Less churches are for churches dedicated to those respective saints. Category:St. James Churches is for churches named "Saint James" regardless of which saint they're dedicated to. The other two categories are for churches dedicated to the saints, no matter what they're named.

That being said, this does raise a couple of questions.

Is a church dedicated to a particular saint always named for that saint? I suggest not, because there are churches named for an attribute of the saint (please correct me if "attribute" isn't the right word) rather than the saint's actual name. For example, there are churches dedicated to Saint Mary that don't have "Mary" in their names: the various versions under Category:Our Lady churches, for example.
Are there churches that bear a saint's name which aren't dedicated to the saint? This one I don't know. There may be a non-dedicated church named after the city it's in, where the city is named for a saint.

So it looks like there's some confusion about categorizing churches by name and by patron saint. Maybe we need different naming conventions for these. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment I just renamed this category to use lower-case for "churches". --Auntof6 (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

AFBorchert is correct: Category:St. James Churches is superfluous and serves no purpose. It adds confusion and should be deleted. Churches have been added to this vague category despite being already in categories that are more precise, either by geography or by discriminating between St James the Greater and St James the Less. This too is superfluous and should in all cases be reverted. "Category:St. James Churches" breaches Commons convention that "St" should not be followed by a stop "." But I wouldn't bother amending it, as the category should be deleted in any case. Motacilla (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is confusion between the church categories by name (where the name is a saint) and by patron saint. However, there is room for both. A person might be looking for a Saint James church they know of when they don't know which James it's related to -- they might not even know that there is more than one Saint James.. Maybe the categories should be renamed to make it clearer what they are for. Maybe "Churches named 'Saint James'" for the by-name categories (for all the churches-by-name categories, not just the saint-related ones). For the by-patron-saint category, maybe "Churches dedicated to <insert specific saint here>". This would apply to all saints, not just the ones named James. I think I will raise this issue at Category:Churches by name. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There are "St James churches" categories (and also "St John churches") for some geographical areas. They serve a limited purpose to categorise any church for which a contributor does not know to which St James (or John) a church is dedicated. I say limited, as usually it can be established which saint is meant, and therefore in many cases the "general" St James or St John category serves only as a holding category until that church is more precisely categorised. Further, Category:St. James churches can only be a global term. Individual churches should be in categories that apply to their country, province, county or other district. A global category for "Saint James churches" might serve as an umbrella for St James the Greater categories and St James the Less ones. Likewise a global "Saint John churches" category might be an umbrella that groups categories St John the Baptist churches, St John the Evangelist churches and St John the Divine ones. But likewise there are more than one St Anthony, St Augustine, St Margaret, St Theresa and so on. Does Commons need categories to group every pair or set of saints who happen to share a forename? Whatever the case, the global "Category:St. James churches" is no place for churches in countries where categories for St James the Greater churches and St James the Less ones are already established. Motacilla (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You apparently think there is no need for a by-name category for churches. Others disagree, since the categories exist. There's no reason we can't have both a by-name structure and a by-patron-saint structure. By the way, this issue is bigger than just the various saints named James. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment While there is an overlap, there's a clear distinction between the name of the church and its patron saint. Within a few miles of me there are churches of St Mary's, Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Mount Carmel - only one is a Saint Mary's church, but all have her as their patron saint. These should all be accessible via Saint Mary in the by-patron-saint tree. These are alternative dedications, and alternative names, so a by-name to supplement the by-patron-saint tree is a good thing. A second tree also handles the situation of dual dedications. A user should be able to find a church of St Peter and St Paul via "St Peter", "St Paul", or "St Peter and St Paul", but the church has two patron saints not one combined.

However, for St James in particular I don't see any real value to having a by-name tree: If the church is dedicated to one of the saints, its formal name will be the specific St James in question. So it should be correctly placed by-name in the St James the Greater (or Lesser) cat, even if its common name is just St James. If its not dedicated to a saint, and just happens to be in a location named St James, then the church's name would be something like "St James Baptist Church". In neither situation is the formal name of the church just "St James", and we should use the formal name not our guess what the common name is.

That means a generic St James category would end up as a dab, of limited utility. If you are looking for a specific St James' church, but don't know if its a Greater or Lesser, you'll have to check in both categories without knowing which is right. The generic St James cat won't help you avoid that chore. Its only real benefit would be to trap new uploads and get them to the right place.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I find Nilfanion's comments very helpful. But not every Commons category is correctly or unambiguously named. Category:St James' Church, Dorney is in fact St James the Less, although you wouldn't know it from its NHLE entry. More often, Commons categories for this or that St James church fail to mention that he is in fact St James the Great. I have already made clear that this also affects categories for churches dedicated to some other saints including Anthony, Augustine, John, Margaret and Theresa. I correct categories that are plain wrong but I seldom change ones that are merely ambiguous. That is because my priority for the moment is to get as many churches as possible into the correct categories. But Auntof6 surely has a point that Commons categories should help rather than baffle the non-expert. Hence I suggest it does no harm that Category:Saint James churches in England includes both Category:Saint James the Greater churches in England and Category:Saint James the Less churches in England, and that nine English counties have "Saint James churches in ——shire" categories that can include both the "Saint James the Greater churches in ——shire" category and any individual "St James the Less" church. So far only two dozen churches are in "Category:Saint James the Less churches in England". The number will increase, but I don't expect the final total to be very large. Motacilla (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I see three options on how to approach the generic St James:

Do not have St James at all, just list via St James the Greater or the Less
Have St James, solely containing the Greater and the Less
Have St James, and list all churches in it regardless of which saint

1 is extremely unhelpful for non-experts, and I think should be avoided. 2 is better still forces an unhelpful split (as they will have to look in both). 3 could be best approach for non-experts. The risks with 3 are original research (how do we know if a St James the Greater church is usually called St James?) and its potentially unstable, due to appearing to go against Commons policy. Its not against policy as a by-name tree is different to a by-patron-saint one, but they are very similar. With that in mind, its almost inevitable that good faith edits will try to remove churches from a St James cat if they are already in the equivalent St James the Greater cat - and it will end up in state 2.

I see a couple broader issues with the by-patron-saint tree, once its (correctly) seen as NOT a by-name tree. A few examples: St Thomas of Canterbury churches and St Thomas Becket churches have different names but the same patron saint. As they have the same patron saint, they should be listed in the same place in the by-patron-saint tree. Churches dedicated to the Holy Cross should not be in the by-patron-saint tree at all, as they don't have a patron saint. The same is probably true of any dedicated to Jesus; he isn't a saint is he? That means a church dedicated to him doesn't have a patron saint! However both Holy Cross and Christ churches would correctly be included in the by-name tree.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

When I'm back on my laptop, I'm going to propose renaming the by-name categories to "Churches named...". That should address the confusion between the by-name and by-saint categories, especially if we have them cross-reference each other. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: , I'm inclined to flip your proposal. Keep by-name categories as-is, and move the patron saint tree to "Churches dedicated to ...". "Churches named ..." is both a clumsy category title and doesn't actually solve the issue, as 99% of St James churches are correctly named "St James the Greater". If anything it might make matters worse - because a church could be either "Church of St James the Greater" or "St James the Greater's Church". The name sometimes includes the location but typically it doesn't. In contrast, "churches dedicated to..." avoids having to any need to rename existing categories, and more naturally addresses things like Our Lady/St Mary/St Mary the Virgin - they all get placed in "churches in location dedicated to Saint Mary", and that's that.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That would work, too (although we'd still have to either rename some or create new "dedicated to" categories). To me, the names "Church of St James the Greater" or "St James the Greater's Church" are equivalent, though: the by-name categories aren't so restrictive that they'd put those in separate categories. I'll include your suggestion when I create the other discussion.

By the way, your ping didn't work. I understand that a ping works only when you add it in the same edit as your signature. In any case, I'm watching this discussion so I see all activity anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My point there the name of the church is not "St Foo" but some variant of the "Church of St Foo" - so strictly speaking Category:Churches named St James would end up empty (as no church is actually named just "St James"), while if the existing Category:St. James Churches is used for the by-name category that issue doesn't arise. "Churches named foo" plus "Foo churches" do not seem that different, while "Foo churches" plus "Churches dedicated to foo" are clearly distinct.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep, although of course with the rename from "Churches to "churches". Like the St. John churches, the St. James churches need to have a generic category when the specific saint isn't identified. For a (potentially) comparable situation, see Category:Saint Augustinus churches; if we were splitting these by the Doctor of Hippo and the Apostle to the Britons, we still should have a parent for when the saint in question isn't specified. Before there was a generic St. John's category, I didn't have a solid idea what to do with a generic St. John's church, since it was unjustifiable precision to put such an image into the category for any one St. John; deleting this category would put us into the same position with generic St. James churches. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Shiplifts

The terms "ship lift" and "boat lift" are ambiguous. In English they can both refer to the mechanism known in Canada as a "lift lock", and, in Germany, as a "schiffshebewerk" -- or for a crane for lifting vessels out of the water, for maintenance. Even though it is not the most common English term, I suggested the unambiguous and more descriptive term "lift lock" should be used for the navigation mechanism. If I cannot win agreement, over that, I suggest we should create Category:Shiplift (navigation), Category:Shiplift (maintenance), Category:Boatlift (navigation) and Category:Boatlift (maintenance) Geo Swan (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Which category are you referring to? Because Category:Shiplifts, as linked here, has nothing to do with locks in the canal sense (e.g. Category:Anderton boat lift), as a means of transport. They are entirely about dry-docking ships by lifting them vertically (and then sometimes horiontally, as a separate operation), for repair or construction. Neither the Canadian or German terms are synonyms.

File:Geheyan Dam shiplift.jpg does not belong in this cat. That one is about transport. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Geo Swan is suggesting that, while the category's file content now might be appropriate, the category name is ambiguous and should be fixed to prevent confusion in the future. That makes some sense to me. I'm neutral on the "lift locks" vs "Shiplifts (navigation)" debate, but no matter which you choose, you should disambiguate both (with Category:Boat lifts (maintenance) or Category:Ship lifts (maintenance)). Otherwise Category:Shiplifts will remain ambiguous and you won't really have removed the potential problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley writes: "Because Category:Shiplifts, as linked here, has nothing to do with locks in the canal sense" I enboldened the phrase "as linked here". I think it marks a key weakness of your reply, and a key weakness of our whole category system.

We have no overall schema. Anyone can add a category. Having done so they should tehn figure out appropriate parent categories to which it should be added. It is common to find that the contributor who picked the initial parent categories did so in a hurry. Sometimes all that needs to be fixed is to change one parent category for a more specific one, or, occasionally, a less specific one. But on other occasions the good faith contributor chose entirely inappropriate parent categories.

No one left a note at the top of this category, explicitly stating it should only contain material related to the cranes for vessel maintenance.

I suggest the logical extension of your argument is badly chosen categories have "squatter's rights", and should never be fixed.

There are many navigational ship-lifts, in China, suppose some good faith contributor, who is a fan of canals, goes on a grand tour of the Chinese canal and river navigation system, and uploads hundreds of pictures of chinese navigational shiplifts, and innocently adds them all to Category:Shiplifts? Would you then suggest that the greater number of navigational shiplifts meant it was the maintenance shiplifts didn't belong?

I looked to see when Category:Shiplifts was started. 2015-05-28. And it was populated, by you on 2015-05-28: , , , , and . No offense, but having looked into your creation of this category, and your population of it, I regard it as an instance of a good faith contributor making good faith mistakes in their category creation, and choice of parent categories. Did you look at the hierarchy under Category:Port cranes, and the thousand or so images there? Aren't the images you included in Category:Shiplifts merely examples of Port cranes? If they aren't simple examples of Port cranes, if they are a specific subset of Port cranes, then one of the subcategories of Category:Port cranes should have been a parent category of Category:Shiplifts. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No, they are not port cranes. They are shiplifts. Look at the real-world sources, for when things are called "shiplifts". Port cranes are in ports, which are places where cargo is moved (not even shipyards).

And yes, I take a lot of offence at your patronising attitude. BAE and VSEL paid me good money to work on their shiplift. I don't give a damn what you amateurs at Wikipedia want to call anything, but it doesn't change the real world and it just makes you look increasingly foolish. Play how you like. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see why you both had to make this personal. Please be civil. Andy hasn't specifically opposed disambiguation. It seems to me he was just looking for clarification. @Andy Dingley: , as the category creator, do you have a preference for how it might be disambiguated to make its purpose clearer? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

See also categories: Ship lifts, Ship-lifting cranes, Boat lifts and Canal locks.
and of course Category:Shiplifts, the page, where the discussion had started

just to try, to sum up the existing categories on Commons. (not read the text above)--Zaccarias (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Members of parliaments of Germany

In sub-categories, "Mitglieder" should be translated to "Members" (e.g. Move to Category:Members of Sächsischer Landtag or Category:Members of the Landtag of the Free State of Saxony or some other equivalent.) Themightyquill (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose "Mitglied des Landtags" (MdL) ist ein feststehender Begriff in Deutschland und Österreich. Es gibt keinen Grund, dafür einen englischen Namen zu erfinden. Mitglied des Landtages (MdL) ist die amtliche Bezeichnung ... Das Gleiche gilt übrigens auch für MdB. Das Mandatskürzel wie MdL wird vor oder als sogenannter Namenszusatz hinter den Nachnamen gesetzt. Die österreichische Entsprechung in den Parlamenten der Bundesländer ist LAbg. --Ralf Roleček 17:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Die bsherige Bezeichnung ist eine amtliche Bezeichnung, die auch in Gesetzen verwendet wird. Ich lehne daher eine Änderung strikt ab. --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Support. Category names are to be in English as much as possible. Equivalent categories for other countries appear to be in English. Some of the German ones and all of the Austrian ones are in English. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose a German signification is a German signification. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Support as an international project, category names should be understandable for a broad range of people. English is the project's main language. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The real problem is of course that category names can't be translated. But until this is fixed, the current compromise of using English category names is the best we have. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Those are proper nouns and shouldn't be translated anyway. btw: Commons is a multilingual, and not an English speaking project. --Stepro (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Dies ist ein internationales Projekt. Das beinhaltet auch, dass man Respekt vor den einzelnen Sprachen und deren amtlichen Bezeichnungen haben sollte und nicht gewaltsam alles in die englische Sprache verbiegt. Wieso eigentlich Englisch? Mit dem gleichen Recht könnte man verlangen, vergleichbare Fragen in Russisch zu formulieren, oder Chinesisch, denn davon gibt es sicher mehr Sprecher, als in Englisch. --ST ○ 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)--ST ○ 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This is indeed an international project, and that's a wonderful thing. The problem is that there is a technical issue with presenting category names in multiple languages: it's currently not possible. For that reason, the policy is that category names are to be in one language. For whatever reason, the language chosen was English. That is purely because of the technical limitation, and is not a sign of disrespect to people or places that speak other languages. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Steschke: I'm not sure if I understand your point. Are you suggesting Category:Members of the State Duma of Russia and Category:General Secretaries of the Communist Party of China should not be in English? Surely there are many job titles, military ranks, and other signifiers on commons that could also use their original languages. I have trouble believing it would be good for the project. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)`

And as the next would be renamed Category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris to Category:Cathedral Our Lady in Paris? Category:Camp Nou to Category:New playing field? Category:Reykjavík to Category:Smoke bay? Consequently, Category:Los Angeles and Category:San Francisco would have to change to Category:The Angels and Category:Saint Francis. --Ralf Roleček 20:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Surely, doctors all have formal titles in every language? Should we therefore not have Category:General practitioners from Germany but Category:Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin ? Members of parliament is a title, but it's ALSO a perfectly normal description. That's inherently different than the examples you give above. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The Doctors aren't proper names. --Ralf Roleček 23:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Surely if it comes with initials you can put after your name, it's a title and a proper name, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose It's an official name (amtliche Bezeichnung) --XRay ^talk 19:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly quite a strong response. Would you all support moving equivalent categories to their own languages for all countries? I appreciate that it's a multilingual project, which is why I'd be perfectly in favour of using Category:Members of Sächsischer Landtag over Category:Members of the Landtag of the Free State of Saxony. Ralf Roletschek, I find your comparison to Tower Bridge/Turmbrücke at Commons:Forum#MdL sollen mal wieder anglifiziert werden rather unfair. In the case of "Mitglieder des Landtags von Baden-Württemberg‎" I could perhaps see that MdL is being used as a formal title, but is it really at "Mitglieder des Bayerischen Landtags‎" ? I'm unconvinced. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I am actually undecided and therefore didn’t take part here. I could live with the translated versions. But as information, Themightyquill: Ralf linked to the German Wikipedia article, where is said, that it is a formal title for members of every regional parliament. What about category redirections? And if yes, a redirection from English to German or vice versa? — Speravir – 22:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Speravir: Sorry, where does it specify that "Mitglieder des Bayerischen Landtags" is a formal title? By my reading, it does specify that "Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages (Abk. MdB)", "Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments (Abk. MdEP)" and "Mitglied des Reichstages (Abk. MdR)" are formal titles. Should we move those as well? Then we can move Welsh MEPs to a category called cy:Aelod Senedd Ewrop (ASE), and French ones to "Membres du parlement européen (MPE)" and polish ones to Poseł do Parlamentu Europejskiego (PPE)? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: The first sentence of the linked de:Mitglied des Landtages says „Mitglied des Landtages (MdL) ist die amtliche Bezeichnung für einen Abgeordneten im Parlament eines der Flächenländer der Bundesrepublik Deutschland bzw. historisch des Deutschen Reichs …“ (”Mitglied des Landtages (MdL) is the official/functional name for a member of the parliament of a state of the Federal Republic Germany resp. historically of th German Reich …” – I’m sure this could be translated into better English.) For the 3 city states the exact name is also listed, but not for the other states. On the other hand you are right, that in the moment everything is mixed with partly English, partly German Category names, especially when it comes to the historic states. — Speravir – 16:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Speravir: I'm not sure if I still don't understand, or if you don't understand me. I get that Mitglied des Landtages (MdL) is a title, so the first part of "Mitglieder des Landtags von Baden-Württemberg‎" (MdL from Baden-Württemberg‎) could reasonably be considered a title. But I don't see how "Mitglieder des Bayerischen Landtags" includes a title (as opposed to "Mitglierder des Landtages von Bayern"). - Themightyquill (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support --A.Savin 10:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. Given that literally none of the English versions of the state parliaments' websites I checked use the term "Mitglieder", the opponents' claims above are absolutely ridiculous. @Steschke: 這句話不是英語 - 非常尊重讀者，不是嗎? FDMS 4 19:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC) (transparency)

Oppose. Actual horrible Denglish like Category:Member of the second chamber of the Württembergische Landstände. In future Category:Member of the second chamber of the Wurttembergische Landsstands or Category:Member of the second chamber of the Wurttemberg country estate (most horrible Denglish by google translator)? --kogo (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Die verwendete Sprache bei Kategoriennamen ist völlig wurscht. Niemand außerhalb der Wikipediawelt sucht oder findet irgendwelche Bilder über die Commons-Kategorien, es sei denn durch Zufall. Wer möchte, daß seine Bilder gefunden und nachgenutzt werden, sorge für eine möglichst zutreffende und ausführliche Bildbeschreibung auf Englisch und in seiner Muttersprache und drücke sie, notfalls per Editwar, in möglichst viele Wikipedia-Artikel hinein. --smial 15:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Support No discussion really needed, also per FDMS4. Category:Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Category:Deutschland) is also a formal title (= Amtlicher Titel). The parliament itself translate his titles to "Member of the German Bundestag"bpb.de bundestag.de (after short search) So the main and initial contra-argument all above is nothing as empty! ↔ User: Perhelion 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Support renaming to Members of XYZ. The word Mitglieder has not been borrowed by English like samurai or assasin. For example, I believe most if not all English news articles would refer to the parliamentarians as members of parliament, members of the German Bundestag and the like. Could be deputies, legislators or lawmakers sometimes, but definitely not Mitglieder. If you google mitglied site:BBC.com even in 2019 now, there's nil! MPs from other countries dont get a unique name, nor should Germans in this case. MPs could be MLAs, MLCs, etc. depending on the names of the legislature, but it's definitely Members of XYZ.--Roy17 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Support per Commons:Categories#Category names. --Marsupium (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Die Befürworter der Umbenennung sind ja sicher auch bereit, dann in Zukunft das Fotografieren der Parlamentsprojekte in Deutschland und Österreich zu übernehmen. Dort können sie den Parlamentariern auch gleich erklären, warum wir ihre Amtsbezeichnungen mißachten. --Ralf Roletschek 13:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, "Mitglieder des Bayerischen Landtags" is not an official title. Mitglied des Landtages (MdL) is a title. Moreover, I suspect parliamentarians could not care less about the Wikimedia Commons category used to hold their photos -- it certainly hasn't been a problem in other countries -- so that particular threat is hardly convincing. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Support We are an international project of which English is lingua franca. In Italy we have the Camera dei Deputati but here it's the Chamber of Deputies and its member are Deputies of Legislature of Italy. Thus there shouldn't be problem to have an english name for the category of the members of the German parliaments at every level. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons ist international, nicht englisch. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitglied_des_Landtages ist eine amtliche Bezeichnung und ein amtlicher Namenszusatz. Im Deutschen achten wir auch den https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire (OBE) und schreiben ihn englisch. Das wird im Artikel nichtmal übersetzt, es ist einfach ein Eigenname - wie MdL. --Ralf Roletschek 22:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Strong support--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously we haven't consensus here, but we must to reach compromise. Voting results: 7 users are oppose, and 10 users support to use English. Conclusion: we must to translate category names. The other question is concrete body names (eg Hessischen Landtags). I guess that if no established English name, then we don't translate these German-language bodies (possible example: "Members of Hessischen Landtags", and not "Mitglieders des Hessischen Landtags")--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

~~it should be "Members of the Landtag of Hesse".~~ Roy17 (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

since it's Category:Hessischer Landtag, it should be "Members of the Hessischer Landtag". (a similar example is Category:Members of the State Duma of Russia, where Duma is neither an english word.)--Roy17 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Es ist nicht einzusehen, warum für Eigennamen englisch-deutsche Mischwörter erfunden werden sollen, die in Wirklichkeit nicht existieren. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitglied_des_Landtages ist ein Namenszusatz und eine Amtliche Bezeichnung. Das ist nicht zu übersetzen, weder nach englisch noch sonstwohin. --Ralf Roletschek 14:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

fr:Député français in french, Category:Deputies of France on commons.

sv:riksdagsledamot in swedish, Category:Members of the Riksdag on commons.

it's difficult to see what makes germany special to use german-language category titles.

on the other hand, take a look at some german landtags' own writings:

"The Members of the Landtag..." https://www.landtag.brandenburg.de/en/welcome_to_parliament/parliament/members/548140
"The Members of Parliament..." https://www.bayern.landtag.de/en/members/members/
"members of the State Parliament of Hesse" https://hessischer-landtag.de/content/members-parliament
"Member of the State Parliament" https://www.landtag.sachsen-anhalt.de/en/the-parliament/the-president

and look at Category:Politicians of Austria by office, which also speak german, right?--Roy17 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11