Hosta

I want to revert the redirect from Portrait of Ottavio Strada by Jacopo Tintoretto as it is no improvement Oursana (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This category was redirected to Category:Portrait of Ottavio Strada (Jacopo Tintoretto) by Ecummenic on 2 September 2018‎. Oursana created Category:Portrait of Ottavio Strada by Jacopo Tintoretto in December 2017‎. Ecummenic created the other this past month. Ecummenic, I'm not sure you were notified until now. Would you like to explain your preference? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a redirection of a deleted category (then recreated) called: Portrait of Ottavio Strada (Tintoretto) Ecummenic (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, that category was created as a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecummenic:  ? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I agree with user:Oursana. The parent Category:Portrait paintings by Jacopo Tintoretto uses mainly the style "by Jacopo Tintoretto" not "(Jacopo Tintoretto)"--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category should be renamed because the subcats are not genres. I'm not sure what the name should be, though: by type? by function? Auntof6 (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be "software icons by subject" !! Editor-1 (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that these do not appear to be "genres". I'm not totally happy with Category:Software icons by subject but I can't think of anything better at the moment. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category should be renamed because not all subcats are genres. I suggest changing "by genre" to "by type". Auntof6 (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English wikipedia has both en:Category:Games by genre and en:Category:Games by type. We might do the same if we have enough to sustain both categories. (Though I'm not sure we do). - Themightyquill (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Games certainly have genres, so while the current state of Category:Games by genre is a mess, I don't think getting rid of it is the solution. Mimicking enwiki here seems like an acceptable step forward to me. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category should be renamed because the subcats are not genres. I'm not sure what the name should be, though: by type? by function? Auntof6 (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest "by type" unless we do create "software by purpose". - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with themightyquill. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of every image must prevail over its colours or its "style".
  Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of the main discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold. Watchduck (quack) 10:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is fake. And this category has three disputable subcategories:

• Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_colorful_3-fold_SVG;_with_dodecahedron
• Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_colorful_3-fold SVG;_with_icosahedron‎
• Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids;_colorful_3-fold_SVG;_with_hull‎
    Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Streets in Stanley, Virginia.

There's no real difference between "roads" and "streets" that warrants both being used. The top-level category for this topic is Category:Streets by city, not Category:Roads and streets by city, and Category:Roads by city is a parent category for Streets by city. If Stanley had a large number of categories for individual streets, and this category were a parent for the ones named "Road" or "Street" (as opposed to "Avenue", "Drive", etc.), this might be useful as a meta category, but as Stanley doesn't have any such tree, I don't see how the precise name is useful. Of course, I'm open to being convinced if this is somehow a special case. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Physically, there is little difference, you are correct. Functionally, there is some difference. That all having been said, I'd argue the top-level structure is somewhat flawed. For localities, a category "roads and streets" category should be used, and then subdivided further if desired. The current occupant of this category is US 340 Bus, which I highly suspect is mostly considered a "road" by locals, not a "street" (with the possible exception of immediate downtown Stanley). Famartin (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons treats streets as a type of road. The standard structure is that categories are named one or the other, and categories for streets go under categories for roads (if both exist). If everything here is a street, the cat can be renamed to Category:Streets in Stanley, Virginia. Otherwise it can be renamed to Category:Roads in Stanley, Virginia and be recategorized appropriately, and if desired images for streets can be split into a different category. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll move it and then if Nyttend wants to add a streets category, he can. Famartin (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see the difference, but since we have lots of "Roads in X" and lots of "Streets in X", it would be a bit absurd for me to request further changes based on what's been said here; I might support a merge of the "roads" tree and the "streets" tree, but no point in asking for changes to just this one category. Thank you for going along with the proposal. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Nyttend, Famartin, and Auntof6: this CFD can probably close. But future nominations about "Streets and roads in ..." or "Roads and streets in ...", or separately "Streets in ..." or "Roads in ..." can be discussed--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support closure: this cat now redirects to just roads, which is fine. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some categories have the form "[Genus] (cultivars)" and some have the from "[Genus] cultivars". Everything in Category:Cultivars by order‎ uses parenthesis. The same goes for "[Family] (cultivars) and "[Family] cultivars". Generally, we use parenthesis to explain what something is when there are two words with the same meaning. (e.g. Category:Belts (equipment) vs Category:Belts, or Category:Nuts (hardware) vs Category:Nuts) so I'd suggest we do the same here. So Category:Abies (cultivars)‎ would move to Category:Abies cultivars as so forth. But "cultivars" should be lowercase, unlike in Category:Nymphaea Cultivars. Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Salicyna: Your recent edits made me think to bring this up, so you may want to be involved here. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Parenthesis is used also in many others categories, eg. Category:Cultivated Pinaceae, Category:Fruit by species, Category:Herbarium specimens, Category:Accipitridae (captive), Category:Accipitridae illustrations (subcategories) and many others... Salicyna (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Salicyna: You're right, captive bird categories seem to be distinguished by parentheses, but oddly, not Category:Captive mammals, and Category:Captive reptiles is mixed. Category:Fruit by taxon seems to use the parenthesis consistently, while Category:Flowers by taxon does not, and Category:Leaves by taxon is mixed. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In taxonomical tree of categories most important criteria is scientific taxon name. When you want to put new file into category or when you look for any file with any taxon – you should enter scientific name and than you should have possibility to see sugestions of subcategories in parenthesis. It is most usefull way of building of biological categorisation. I am sick with subcategories which start from diffrent 'Close ups of..', 'Leaves of..' 'Cultivated..' Whan you have to upload plenty of pics it is very confusing to find correct subcategory. Kenraiz (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenraiz: That's how most categorization works, not just for biological topics. Libraries use formatting like, "France, cities of" or "Picasso, works of" to prioritize the main subject. That's not, however, how commons has organized itself. That's the source of conflict. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: The solution would be standarization with scientific name at the begining. Parenthesis are most common in plant tree part of categories, but I can imagine that it could be also found Scientific name cultivars/fruit/leaves or Scientific name - cultivars/fruit/leaves (we do not have constructions like Scientific name, cultivars/leaves/fruit of). Non solution would be good without agreement in wide group of most active editors in this part of Commons. Kenraiz (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that the reason, why in most systems the categorie starts with the scientific name of the plant is that they have a category tree. We use the word category tree but in fact have a network not e tree, with most categories having more than one parent category. In each parent category the element that distinguishes a given category from the other categories in this parent category is different and therefore in many cases the sorting key is addet by hand. That is not how sorting in other systems usually works, but as it is possible here means that there is not reason why the category name has to start with the scientific name. Additionally if we search by scientific name of a species we start with the species category and look there for subcategories. Kersti (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd be concerned about having one standard for one area of commons and another completely opposite standard for other areas of commons. I think it would lead to continued confusion and conflict. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people interested in botany works here alone and build "own" trees of categories. We can talk about reasons for discouragement in case we would start change a lot of categories. So, first we should engage as many as possible active uploaders and editors of "plant categories" and then talk about standards of category naming scheme. Kenraiz (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the short category names like Category:Abies (cultivars)‎ it dosen't matter to me, which solution is selected, as long as the one who starts the changes in a category tree does this for evere single category in the tree and the existing chaos is reduced. In longer names like Category:Microscopic images of plants - cross sections of leaves, I think that whatever rule is selecteed wouldn't be easyly applicable. Kersti (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be renamed Category:Fruits by taxon, cf Category:Fruit (edible fruit) vs. Category:Fruits (botanical sense), and that Category:Fruit by taxon is currently categorized into Category:Fruits (botanical sense), and not Category:Fruit (edible fruit). Bennylin (yes?) 16:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category:Outdoor stages redundant with Category:Open air theaters? Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• theaters include "stages for concerts"? --Benzoyl (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that. Certainly, concerts can happen in theatres. If we're talking about theatres as facilities, there's no obvious difference. If we're talking about theatres as performances, that's obviously something else. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Open air stages (=Open air theaters?), I think there are concerts, theatrical performance, dance performance, circus act, speeching etc. Most of them are "performance". --Benzoyl (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because, Theater is broad sense word. I'm not against. I agree Category:Outdoor stages merge to Category:Open air theaters. --Benzoyl (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Benzoyl: IMHO a stage is just a part of the theatre, even though the core part. The other parts can be the open-air auditorium with benches etc., entrances, fences, ticket counters or booths, snack booths, toilets and other attached equipment and facilities. I.e. outdoor stages should be a subcategory of open air theatres (even though the name "stage" is often metonymically used for the whole theatre). Ideally, the category "outdoor stages" should be used specifically for detailed views of the stages, not for whole open air theatres. The category of bandshells can be categorized under outdoor stages, open air cinemas can be categorized under open air theaters (as "cinema theatres") and their screen stands under "outdoor stages". Many stages are universal, used for all, theatre, dance, concert or cinema performances. --ŠJů (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently a parent category, Category:SVG_Kepler-Poinsot_solids should have subcategories by topic, not by colour.
  Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold. Watchduck (quack) 11:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this change.
  Arthur Baelde (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same topic, according to the image names.

According to their names, the two adjacent images show a same polyhedron. The first image is the last drawing of an old image used on Wikipedia, also visible on Star polyhedron for example. The second image is currently categorized in Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_colorful_3-fold _SVG. But Watchduck would like to avoid the discussion.
  Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a duplicate of the old discussion. I have copied your post there and will not respond here. Watchduck (quack) 11:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems partly redundant with Category:Streets in Villach. Normally I would just move the entries for streets to the other category and then rename this one, but I'm not confident enough in my German to tell which ones should be moved. If others agree that this should be done, then maybe someone with better German than I could take care of it. Auntof6 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to move the content of "Streets in Villach" to the "Streets and squares in Villach" category because of the small number of squares a specific "square" cat is not needed. "Streets and squares in ..." is an often used cat for practical reasons which really makes sense. --Eweht (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more "Streets in" categories than "Streets and squares in" categories. In general, it's not good to include two different things in a cat, because there's no good category structure for such cats to fit into. It's OK if there aren't many streets in a street category. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streets and squares are different things, like churches and chapels are. While the first are addressable places, the second are places of worship. It depends on the abstraction, which one is natural and obvious for the flyby user, and which one is not. If I have to know whether a place of worship is a church, a cathedral, a chapel, a cemetery chapel, etc. to find the right one then the abstraction is too fine. If I have to know whether it is a street or a square (a lane maybe), it makes it more difficult find it and more difficult to put it. So I prefer to put streets and squares to a single abstraction. Looking only at the addresses in Villach, it is impossible to judge by name what type of street of square it is: Am Anger, Am Bichl, Am Graben, Am Hügel, Am Platzl (this is gorgeos!), Am Waldrain, Auen, Auf der Heide, Auf der Tratten, Bergsiedlung, Drauberme, Draulände, Jakob-Sereinigg-Siedlung, Jakominirain, Jesenfeldrain, Neu Egg, Neue Heimat, Perauhof, Schwanenblick, Seebach, Seenußhof, Serai, Sonnrain, St. Agathen, St. Ruprecht, Walter-v.-d.Vogelweide-Park, Wasenboden, Zwischenbergen. I would prefer to keep all kind of addressable places in a single category. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what makes up the difference between a street and a square? is it the name containing certain key words (like Straße, Gasse, Weg vs. Platz - in various languages) or is it the ratio: 1:1 ratio for sure is a square, 1:2 is not a square in mathematical sense, but in urban sense, and 1:1000 is a street. But 1:4, 1:5? Is a roundabout a square? Does it depend on in how many directions does the traffic flow? One direction and just the opposite is a street, many directions is a square? Not really sane, consider pedestrian zones. There is no criteria to make this separation clear and sharp in general. So one has to know the place to categorize and one has to know the place to find the proper category. In some cases it is only by convention, e.g. the Viennese Graben, meaning ditch or moat, is it a street or a square? Depending only on addresses makes life much easier. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Auntof6, Herzi Pinki, and Eweht: this CFD is much wider than should be. I just mention that Commons' database has 1032 categories with name parts "streets and squares" and even 129 categories "squares and streets". I guess that this CFD can be closed. Future nominations about "streets and squares"-topic are encouraged--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: , I've expressed a personal opinion, which does not mean that I'm right in a broader sense (you are mentioning similar categories but you avoid to express an opinion). Where is the general rule to decide this change? To skip this change? To love the state as it is? (bad idea, as there are both categories where one would be sufficient). If, I would go for resolving Category:Streets in Villach to Category:Streets and squares in Villach. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Category:Richard Short" the best name for this category? Scholars agree that no known images of Short remain. Scholars agree none of his original images remain. Rather, his work is known from the engravings and painting made by individuals who based their images on his original drawings.

So, I suggest, a more accurate title for this category would be something like Category:Images based on the work of Richard Short. Geo Swan (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, the wikidata is wildly incorrect. Different sources list different years when he was active, as an artist. If he was born in 1754 then he would have been just four years old when he sketched Quebec City, after serving as a Royal Navy officer during its capture. Yes, the Royal Navy did employ trainee-officers as young as 12, and the very occasional exceptional precocious 12 year old can draw as well as an adult. But 12 is not 4, and the Quebec campaign was not his first campaign. Geo Swan (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L'année de naissance de Short est inconnue. Compte tenu de ses activités, on peut présumer qu'il est né dans les années 1730. Jeangagnon (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of interwiki links and categorization, I think it would probably make sense to keep this category, but for the sake of accuracy, I would support creating a subcategory of either Category:Works after Richard Short (in Category:Works after other works by original artist) or (if they are all engravings) Category:Engravings after Richard Short (in Category:Engravings after other works by original artist‎. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter "workperiod" means "work period", not birth year. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with themightyquill, and it looks like steps have been taken in this direction. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category:Landscape paintings from France not redundant with Category:Landscape paintings of France ? Themightyquill (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at the content I would take the former to mean “landscapes by French painters” (depicting any country) but the latter as “paintings of the French landscape” (by artists of any nationality). Not exactly crystal-clear, though! Are there any similar pairs from other countries or regions that are better phrased?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: I agree with User:Odysseus1479. The respective parent categories are Category:Landscape paintings by country of origin and Category:Landscape paintings by depicted country--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the first might fit better under Category:Paintings by artist by country of origin. Perhaps rename Category:Landscape paintings by artists from France? -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a subcat of "Users in Turkey" this cat should be moved to "in" (and not "from"). The same could be valid for Ankara and other cities. One can be from any city of Turkey but also live abroad etc. In and from do not look very compatible to me. E4024 (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be renamed, but should probably be recategorized to resolve the discrepancy, even if we have to create a new subtree. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For novices, “SVG nonconvex regular polyhedra” would be clearer than “SVG Kepler-Poinsot solids‎‎”.
  Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Allforrous: I don't get how this discussion caused you to create this strange redirect, but I assume it was a mistake. Is there something you would want to change here? I think the idea that we should use the term "nonconvex regular polyhedra" instead of "Kepler-Poinsot solids" can be dismissed without further discussion. Arthur Baelde has opened a plethora of pointless category discussions, and it would be a bad idea to spend more time with them than absolutely necessary. Watchduck (quack) 15:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Allforrous (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing “Kepler‑Poinsot solids” with “nonconvex regular polyhedra”  will simplify the description of the parent category,  named “SVG_regular_polyhedra”. We must update this description.
  Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In someway this is more of a discussion as to what should be used for politician categories as a whole, rather than a single category.

Category:Tom Arthur (politician born 1883) was originally Category:Tom Arthur (Australian politician) since June 2018 and prior it as just Category:Tom Arthur. There was two reason why I had named it Category:Tom Arthur (Australian politician), firstly based of the nationality (in politics, not place of birth) that was stated on Wikipedia and the format that is used for other Australian politicians. In some cases a state only politician use the state (e.g. a New South Wales politician would have (New South Wales politician) rather then the country, I hope this isn't too confusing but will give some examples below.

Small sample of examples:

• Category:Percy Abbott (Australian politician)
• Category:Ken Anderson (Australian politician)
• Category:John Anderson (Australian politician)
• Category:John Armstrong (Australian politician)
• Category:John Thomson (Australian politician)

I personally think we should stay well away from blanket based (politician) in categories, I don't have an issue with the birth year. Categories should be using were the politician has served (county, state, territory, country ect) as the plain politician is not very informative when categorising images/photographs, examples below. If a politician serves in a state and then Federally, the Federal parliament is used over the state. One downside however is that some living politicians do not disclose there date of birth.

Example: Category:Tom Arthur (Australian politician, born 1883), Category:David Watson (New South Wales politician, born 1870)‎ --Bidgee (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of details in parenthesis should be relative to need. If an Australian politician's name is Benedict Breckenridge, and there are no other notable people with that name, there's no need to add (Australian politician) or even (politician). If someone's name is John Smith, you might need to add parenthetical details about their job and location. I'd tend to keep out birth date unless absolutely (two people of the same name, nationality and profession, often related) because it's unwieldly, and as mentioned, not always verified, given to disagreement in the historical record, etc. I'd normally prefer to see the use of middle names, which are more consistent.

In this case, there are at least two politicians named Tom Arthur: en:Tom Arthur (Australian politician) and en:Tom Arthur (Scottish politician), so simply (politician) is insufficient, but I see no reason to rely on date of birth. Surely, people are more likely to identify a politician based on their nationality than their birthdate. I don't know the birthdates of any politicians in my country. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with themightyquill. Category names should be disambiguated with the minimum information possible, starting with the most recognizable piece of information and working down as necessary. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term "practical" is redundant. Essentially all electronic circuits are practical. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest something like en:Category:Electronics substrates instead. --Glenn (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does that work for you, Alan Liefting ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Alan Liefting, Themightyquill, and Glenn: unless we find an electronic expert, I would upmerge the nominated category into Category:Electronic circuits--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Estopedist1: this merge would be most undesirable. Right now, Category:Electronic circuits is dominated by concepts illustrated through circuit drawing - abstractions like category:Negative resistance and large chunks of theory like the Category:Resistor circuits. Circuit as a schema, a drawing, a network graph that follows an agreed convention. Not circuit as a tangible device. I'd prefer to keep it this way, and store things and technologies somewhere else. Retired electrician (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Electronics substrates sounds inappropriate, too. The word substrate has quite narrow practical usage in electronics - mostly, it is about the body, the base layer of a silicon die. Or the flat base of a hybrid IC, a microwave filter etc. But not the fiberboard of an ordinary PCB. On the other extreme, en:Point-to-point construction (part of en:Category:Electronics substrates) is actually about making things without substrate, sometimes literally "out of thin air". Retired electrician (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification required! Most ships are registered in countries of convenience. Many ships serve ports in multiple countries. So, which country should be used when using the subcategories to this category? Country of registration? Country of home-port? Country where the photo was taken? Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Geo Swan: parent category is Category:Lifeboats by country; same problem as the nominated category? I guess that in both cases the criterion (to designate the country) is taken from the location where the ship/boat is locating at the moment of photographing. Lifeboats on international waters can be problematic. User:Stunteltje, can you help?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also assume that when the parent category is Category:Lifeboats by country and the other categories in this parent category are "Category:Lifeboats in", the country "by location" was intended. Lifeboats in international waters are not categorised here.--Stunteltje (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to merge this cat with Workshop of Michiel van Mierevelt Oursana (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense to keep "Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt" as per the parent category? I have no prefernce between Studio and Workshop, though it does seem they are redundant. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ihm afraid I did not get you right. Of course we keep parent cat. I moved studio files to workshop--Oursana (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I guess we can close it, user:Themightyquill--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oursana: Sorry, apparently my comment was unclear. I meant, why have the base category called Category:Circle of Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt but the sub-category Category:Workshop of Michiel van Mierevelt? Wouldn't Category:Workshop of Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt be logical? -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be merged with Dried fish in the Philippines Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, and thanks for your message; actually Daing is the Tagalog or filipino dialect version of Dried fish in the Phillippines, hence it may be merged, very sincerely yours, Judgefloro 07:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with merging the two, but I have no strong opinion on which way to go. Category:Dried fish in the Philippines is clear in English. On the other hand, the English wikipedia article is at en:Daing. Category:Daing is also in a category for milkfish. If there's a special name for dried milkfish, we could create a new category for that. For instance, en:Daing suggests dried rabbit fish is known locally as danggit or buwad danggit. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I suggest to follow enwiki en:Daing--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be merged with Dried fish in the Philippines Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, and thanks for your message; actually Tuyo is the Tagalog or filipino dialect version of Dried fish in the Phillippines, hence it may be merged, very sincerely yours, Judgefloro 07:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

La categoría y su contenido fue trasladada a Category:Capital building (Temuco). Juampayo de Pelo Largo (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. Google search doesn't give many hits to <"Capital building" + Temuco>. Maybe we should use the local name for this building (ie Category:Edificio Capital; qualifier "Temuco" seems to be redundant, at all)? Noticing also user:Soy Juampayo--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be a category of minatures, but a category of miniature painters. This should either be Category:Perisian miniature painters / Category:Miniature painters from Persia (in Category:Miniature painters) or Category:Persian minaturists / Category:Miniaturists from Persia (in Category:Miniaturists by country). Themightyquill (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Perfectly normal category. Idiotic nomination, frankly. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Firstly, please be civil. Second, if it's "perfectly normal" you can surely give another example of a similar one. I would have no problem with the category name "Persian miniatures by artist" if the contents were sub-categories named "Persian miniatures by <name of artist>" but contents are clearly sub-categories with just the names of artists. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a problem with this name! You should probably be aware that the "Persian miniature" is a genre/style/artform, not all of whose artists were "Persian" or from Persia (however you define those terms for the period concerned, several centuries ago). The vast majority of categories for less well-known artists just use their name, but the contents of the category are just their artworks. See eg Category:Painters from the Northern Netherlands (before 1830). Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: You're right - I wasn't sure about whether it was a style or restricted to the region, which is exactly why I suggested both "Persian miniature painters" and "Category:Miniature painters from Persia" to be safe. If you prefer Category:Painters of persian miniatures that could work too. A few extrenuous images in a "painters" category that is otherwise filled entirely with sub-categories for painters is hardly a parallel example of a "paintings" category filled entirely with sub-categories for painters. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The category Buildings in Atlanta should not be under Buildings in Fulton County and Buildings in DeKalb County. Atlanta is in 2 counties. The individual photos should be under buildings in Fulton County or Buildings in DeKalb County not the whole category of Buildings in Atlanta. Mjrmtg (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but this is a common way of categorizing when one entity is in two different entities like this. Another example is with countries that are in more than one continent. Do we want to divide this category into "Buildings in Atlanta (DeKalb County)" and "Buildings in Atlanta (Fulton County)", or have the buildings directly under the counties' building categories? Also, do we need to address anything other than buildings? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Category:People of Atlanta‎ is in Category:People of Fulton County, Georgia‎, but unlike buildings, I don't see any way to divide up the entire former population of Atlanta based on which side of town they were born on. =) Category:National Register of Historic Places in Atlanta and Category:Plaques in Atlanta‎, however, could be divided up. I'm not sure what to do with Category:Transport in Atlanta‎. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we put a note under buildings in each county to see "Buildings in Atlanta" because some of them would be in the county. And what if there are buildings on the county line? Or maybe we don't categorize Atlanta by county at all? This CFD may need wider exposure to get more participation. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like how Men of Turkey are under Men of Asia and Men of Europe? People of Atlanta would be impossible to divide between People of Fulton County and People of DeKalb County. I'm not sure what needs to be done about cities that are in more than 1 county. I do like the suggestion of "Buildings in Atlanta (Fulton County)". Yes I agree, wider exposure would be good for this discussion. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this category is a duplicate of Category:1891 in New York Robby (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've converted Category:1891 in New York into a DAB but I'm not closing this as there appear to still be templates than may need changing to remove the links and automatic categorization. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've some doubts whethe3r it is really useful and necessary to have 3 categories for this. I would suggest to have just one category for the state New York and a subcategory for New York City (which is located in the state New York). Moreover we have to be aware of that in order to avoid a big mess we need to align as well the templates related to this cf Commons:Deletion requests/Template:New York(state)year and last but not least put the appropriated changes in all relevant elements in Wikidata. Robby (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a duplicate of Category:1892 in New York Robby (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:1892 in New York is now a DAB. I'd recommend discussing this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:1891 in New York (state) to keep the discussion in 1 place. However I haven't closed this as as Category:1892 in New York still contains Category:1892 maps of New York. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was left out of the changes resulting from Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Sculptures by artist because it doesn't inlude the word painting. The wikipedia article at en:Madonna (art) would seem to suggest they aren't necessarily paintings. Is this category not redundant to Category:Paintings of Virgin Mary by artist? Thanks Themightyquill (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this, too. (I'm still following up on some of these, so thanks for starting this discussion.). I came to the conclusion that "Madonna" in the context of art means certain types of depictions of Mary (including Madonna and child, but possibly others). A example that I think does not go under Madonnas is depictions of the Annunciation. Maybe she didn't become "Madonna" until Jesus was born? Of course, my understanding may be wrong.

I was thinking a new name for this one could be "Painted Madonnas by artist" or "Paintings of the Madonna by artist". --Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that might be correct, but it still seems like an unnecessary additional level of categorization to me, given the existence of Category:Paintings of Virgin Mary by artist and Category:Paintings of Madonna and Child by artist‎. I only count 3 categories where both "Madonnas by X" and "Paintings of the Virgin Mary by x" exist. Rightly or wrongly, annunciation categories for Fra Angelico‎, Giovanni di Paolo‎, Antonello da Messina‎, Titian and Paolo Veronese‎ are directly in those artists "Madonnas by X" categories, likely because none of those artists have Category:Paintings of Virgin Mary by x categories. I can't imagine any additional categories for Category:Paintings of the Madonna by artist beyond Category:Paintings of Virgin Mary by artist.- Themightyquill (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When this is resolved, Category:Drawings of Madonnas by Leonardo da Vinci may need to be recategorized because it isn't for paintings. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte löschen da leer und nicht notwendig. Biberbaer (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete there empty category and not necessary. -- Biberbaer (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. It's a redirect, so it's supposed to be empty. As far as I can see, it was at this name for 8 years before you moved it, so maybe it's not a totally unreasonable name? Any particulary reason to delete the redirect? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have or had in Berlin two "Alsenbrücken" (Alsen bridges). Category:Alsenbrücke: This "Alsen bridge" was destroyed in 1945. It was located in Berlin-Moabit and should be moved to Category:Alsenbrücke (Berlin-Moabit). Today there is the Category:Hugo-Preuß-Brücke. For standardization I have moved the other "Alsenbrücke" [1] [2] in Wannsee to Category:Alsenbrücke (Berlin-Wannsee). Sorry for my simple English but I hope you understand the background. Greetings -- Biberbaer (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Biberbaer. Given your explanation that there are two bridges in the same city with the same name, I think it definitely makes sense to disambiguate Category:Alsenbrücke. Category:Alsenbrücke (Berlin-Moabit) sounds fine to me, and I have no problem with the move to Category:Alsenbrücke (Berlin-Wannsee). I've tagged it for discussion here.

But my point is that Category:Alsenbrücke (Berlin-Wannsee) is the only one that crosses the Griebnitzkanal, right? So the redirect from Category:Alsenbrücke (Griebnitzkanal) to Category:Alsenbrücke (Berlin-Wannsee) is not causing any confusion. If we move to Category:Alsenbrücke (Berlin-Moabit), we could (theoretically, I'm not suggesting it) also redirect Category:Alsenbrücke (Spree) there without problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Themightyquill, this is an acceptable compromise. Sorry, I made a mistake. Right is Category:Alsenbrücke (Berlin-Moabit) not Mitte. My thought was to adapt the categories to the articles in the German Wikipedia [3] + [4]. But it doesn't have to be. The redirects are certainly helpful. Thank you -- Biberbaer (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Biberbaer: Category:Alsenbrücke is reserved to Spree-bridge. This maybe acceptable solution, given that Griebnitzkanal-bridge is inferior. Dewiki article about Griebnitzkanal-bridge (= de:Alsenbrücke (Berlin-Wannsee)) is quite short.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Estopedist1, I think the current state of affairs is fine. -- Biberbaer (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Festivals of Indonesia ? Themightyquill (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect one to the other. I don't really mind which goes where, but Category:Festivals by country seems to prefer "of" over "in". --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use of instead of in, for all other Festivals in XX country/place as well.--Roy17 (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually prefer "in" in most cases. It helps us distinguish between Category:Saint Patrick's Day and Category:Saint Patrick's Day in Ireland. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about this. There are some festivals/traditions that have spread to different countries. But if we only create one category, I think it's better to be of than in. SPD is a festival of Ireland (or should I say Irish people) and celebrated mostly by the Irish diaspora. If we use in, SPD should be categorised by each country it's celebrated in. So I prefer of, unless a category Festivals originating from XX is also created.--Roy17 (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion @Themightyquill, HyperGaruda, and Roy17: probably rational is to use "in" to clearly say in which country/location an event takes place. Just in case, I am pinging also user:Auntof6--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support either one now. Just make it consistent. But as HyperGaruda said, Category:Festivals by country is now predominantly "of", to save effort we could just stick to current scheme. Roy17 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this be closed by adopting "Festivals in XX". Roy17 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill@HyperGaruda@Estopedist1 adopting "Festivals in XX" if no objection. Any more thoughts? Roy17 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]