Hosta

Aside from a couple of weird random categories that probably shouldn't be in here anyway like Ancient Greek brick stamps this seems to be a duplicate of either the main logo category, Category:Logos of products, Category:Logos of brands and a few other categories related to logos. Including it's parent category Category:Logos of companies. Also trademarks have to do with intellectual property law, which has nothing to do with any of the files in here. Except in the most non-meaningful way possible. Otherwise every single file in Category:Unidentified logos could be included in here. So my suggestion is that the files in this category, as well as it's related subcategories, be deleted and the files they contain be put in more descriptive categories. Obviously excluding the non-related categories like Ancient Greek brick stamps. Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Category:Trademarks and Category:Logos of products are two different things, though they have a lot of overlap. However, not sure that Category:Trademarks belongs under Category:Logos of companies as for most of history trademarks were more for individual craftspeople or guilds than they were for companies. In the modern day trademarks are almost always logos and very often owned or representative of companies, but that is only in modern times. Category:Logos of products and Category:Logos of brands should probably be children of Category:Trademarks, as well as Category:Ancient Greek brick stamps and other forms of trademarks that precede modern concepts of intellectual property. Josh (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If trademarks are almost always logos then how is this not just a duplicate of those categories? We can create categories for synonyms of the word "logo" all day, to account the extremely minor differences in the definitions, but after a point it isn't helpful and just makes organizing logos impossible. In this case the minor difference between a logo and a trademark is a distinction without a purpose, because for all intents and purposes 99% of the files in the category are literally logos, which is why most (or all) of them say they are logos and are already in categories for logos.

In the meantime calling Category:Ancient Greek brick stamps trademarks is stretching it since the concept didn't exist until the mid 1800s. Before that such symbols where considered seals. Which is why Category:Ancient Greek brick stamps is already in Category:Archaeological seal impressions. I see no reason not to just have it be in that category instead of every other one that is even slightly related to the concept of seals. With this category, obviously treating every random pre-modern symbol as a trademark would make this category unusable. I highly doubt anyone is looking for rocks from ancient Greece with random squares imprinted on them when they do a search for images of Trademarks anyway. Ultimately logos are already in logo categories, seals are already in categories for seals, Etc. Etc. So ultimately this category doesn't add anything to equation that isn't already being served by more descriptive ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide, trademarks can have have legal protections. They may require registration by some countries. This legal framework seems to add to this particular category's differentiation from other categories. Ooligan (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment "Almost always" is not "always", and thus the two categories are not duplicates. Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Adamant1: How exactly does the distinction make 'organizing logos impossible'? Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Your comment that the concept of trademarks didn't exist until the 1800s is incorrect. Trademarks have much older roots, early uses being cited in ancient Rome, and even several current marks go back many more centuries than you indicated (Stella Artois traces their mark back to the 1300s, for example). Modern trademark laws may be rooted in the 1800s, but trademarks themselves go much further back. Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Are all logos trademarks? Some are surely non-commercial that aren't copyright though most will be so I'm not sure if the distinction is needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Trademarks may not be a corporate "logo," but they can be. Logos may be trademarks, but not always. Both these categories should be kept. In the future, the United States Patent and Trademark Office may digitize it's full collections of millions of documents (This would be a great future Wikimedia Foundation Project/ Partnership). Then there are the trademark record holdings in other countries as well. So, just the surface of this subject is found here in Commons. --Ooligan (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "both the categories should be kept." I wasn't suggesting the deleting the logo category. As far as the patent office maybe someday digitizing their collection, I'd be fine with recreating the category when that happens. As far as I can tell there aren't currently any patent documents in the category though and it would be ridiculous to keep a category that is currently a duplicate of another one just because it might be useful at some point in the future. That said, if the category is kept there at least be a warning that the purpose of the category isn't for logos, but then at the same time if the logos are removed then it would pretty much be empty and be deleted anyway. So IMO it should just be deleted now. Otherwise, I guess I could just put all the logos in the other category and C2 it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I'm not sure if it changes anything, but I'll note that template:trademarked sets category:with trademark, so it's not as if Commons' category structure wouldn't currently have a conception of this distinction anyway. Arlo James Barnes 02:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. IMO category:with trademark is yet another reason this category is completely useless and redundant. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Category:With trademark is specifically for works which may have legal protection under trademark law in certain jurisdictions, not for all trademarks, many of which predate modern trademark law. Thus the two are not identical and a merge is not warranted. Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say that but this category isn't about the general philosophical concept of a "trademark", whatever that is, since it's in Category:Intellectual property law. So it specifically pertains to trademarks as a legal concept. Given that, trademarks as a legal concept or otherwise didn't really exist until the 1800s UK with the Trade Marks Registration Act of 1875. Unless you count King Henry III of England's law that required bakers to add a distinctive mark to all bread sold, but that would be stretching it. There definitely was no "trademarks" in Greek times, as a legal concept or otherwise. They distinguished the appropriation and copying of comedies by other authors as theft, but that's about it. Things like potter's marks never had legal protection. In the meantime you can't just say any symbol on an object is a trademark. That's not what the term means and it isn't the purpose of the category. Unless you want to remove Category:Intellectual property law, but then we are back to my original argument that this is a redundant category because categories for logos already exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your reasoning. You posit that Category:Trademarks is somehow constrained by being currently under Category:Intellectial property law. However, that is incorrect as that isn't how categories work. Parent categories do not define the contents of their children. This flaw unfortunately undermines the conclusion you reach as a result. Whether or not it is part of Category:Intellectual property law does not change the fact that not all logos are trademarks, and thus either way, the two categories are not redundant. Josh (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parent categories do not define the contents of their children. I don't disagree, but they should at least have some kind of connection conceptually and semantically. That's kind of the whole point. Obviously no is going to advocate for putting a sub category of Category:Felis silvestris catus in Category:Neutron stars or whatever just because categories do not define the contents of their children. Get real. In this case trademarks are loosely connected to modern copyright law and they come out of it as a concept. So it makes sense to have Category:Trademarks as a child category of Category:Intellectual property law. Your irrelevant hand waving about definitions doesn't negate that. In the meantime I have yet to see anyone, including you, come up with a solution to the problems that originally led me open this CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1, Joshbaumgartner, Ooligan, Crouch, Swale, and Arlo Barnes: It looks like there are two camps in this discussion, with opposite opinions, which normally means that there will be no merger or deletion of categories and the discussion will be closed without any actions. But perhaps we can do at least something, like adding descriptions to the involved categories and making a better category structure.

1. What are good descriptions of the three terms, which show their differences? Can we just copy the definitions from EN-WP?
   1. Trademarks = A type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services (source: EN-WP), so they have to do with intellectual property law.
      1. Now I see that there is also Category:Registered trademark‎. What is the difference with just Category:Trademarks? Can this category be merged into Category:Trademarks? If no: shouldn't it be in plural? JopkeB (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
   2. Logos (of organizations, products and/or brands) = A graphic mark, emblem, or symbol used to aid and promote public identification and recognition (source: EN-WP)
   3. Brands [new] = A name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that distinguishes one seller's good or service from those of other sellers (source: EN-WP)
2. What kind of files should be in each of these three categories? How can an administrator (like me) decide in which category/ies a file should be in? How can you see from an image if it is a logo or a trademark?
3. How should the category structure of Category:Trademarks be adjusted?
   1. Proposal: Category:Trademarks keeps its current parents. Agree?
   2. Can Category:Brands also be a parent of Category:Trademarks, like in the EN-WP?
   3. Should Category:Logos of products and Category:Logos of brands be children of Category:Trademarks?

--JopkeB (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Brands" can mean the product its self while "trademarks" only tends to refer to the logo in the sense of a picture etc. These uses overlap but I'm not sure if we need to split but it may well be a good idea since as noted these are not the same. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of how to structure the subcategories of this one for diffusion. I've already created the obviously selective subcategory Cat:Images of electronic components with rulers to indicate scale‎, but I'm trying to figure out the right balance of selectivity and simplicity for the rest.

Some potential subcategories that stand out are Cat:Pistol and rifle cartridges, Cat:Ammunition, and Cat:Images from museums. However, there is much overlap between these three. To what extent should the new hierarchy mirror (and take the name of) the existing categories that form their intersections?

Other themes seem to be cables, wires, ropes, and consumer electronics. Note: there are several images of human penises in the category; in keeping with the principle of least surprise, categories representing the intersection with the hierarchy at Cat:Human penis size measurement are probably also needed.  — wqnvlz (talk · contribs) 07:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Category:Images with rulers to indicate scale	Move to/Rename as	Category:Rulers indicating scale
	Category:images of coins with rulers to indicate scale	Move to/Rename as	Category:coins with rulers indicating scale
	Category:images of fish with rulers to indicate scale	Move to/Rename as	Category:fish with rulers indicating scale
	Category:images of electronic components with rulers to indicate scale	Move to/Rename as	Category:electronic components with rulers indicating scale
	Category:images of plants with rulers to indicate scale	Move to/Rename as	Category:plants with rulers indicating scale
	The 'images of' part of the title is rather superfluous. As for sub-cats, just sort by main subject (fish, ammunitions, etc.) and create new cats as appropriate. Any such subject that has more than a couple of images in the main cat should work for a sub-cat.
	Josh (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wqnvlz: Any objection to the above proposal, or can we close this and proceed? Josh (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support these proposed changes - not commenting on categories I'm unfamiliar with, but the use of "images" seems superfluous indeed and organisms seem like a place where diffusion would be pretty clear along taxonomic lines, similar to the ones found in museum categories like Category:Nature in Auckland Museum. I think it can be closed for now, as no one voiced opposition for several months since @Wqnvlz: created this. I've been waiting for the discussion closure to diffuse organisms, and wanted to point out there's tens of thousands of herbarium specimens photographed with rulers that aren't currently in here. YuriNikolai (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update - applied proposed category renames to all categories inside "Images with rulers to indicate scale", as no one opposed this and a few more months have passed. I'd like to note the problem of names with superfluous parts goes a few steps up, for example Category:Images with objects to indicate scale has a lot of subcats, and rulers are just one of them - not sure if I should BOLD move all of them or start an equal discussion one level up, even though this seems like an open and close thing for me. YuriNikolai (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious name. Should be "Bath" instead of "Baghniq", that means bath (բաղնիք) in Armenian, mistakely written in Latin script. Kareyac (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Kareyac: Is բաղնիք the proper name for this place, or is it just a bath in Araqelots? Josh (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: It‘s just a room, a place for washing. Not proper name. In heritage list labeled as բաղնիք, like the other nameless items: wall, belfry, mill. - Kareyac (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kareyac: Thanks for the clarification, see proposal below:

	Category:Baghniq, Araqelots village	Move to/Rename as	Category:Baths in Araqelots village, Acharkut
	Intersection category, per Universality principle should reflect parent categories Category:Baths in Armenia and Category:Araqelots village, Acharkut. As a non-proper noun, English should be used, and even if there may be only one bath in this village that we currently have media of, plural is appropriate for non-proper nouns.
	Josh (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Kareyac (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear meaning. Why emphasize "including"? we already have enough Category:Cosplay of Hatsune Miku.--Kai3952 (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kai3952: Hi. "Including" means, not the main subject of photograph (subject-clear), but the included on the group photographs or the background (subject-not-clear), etc. In my opinion, this type of sub-category (including category) is needed for easy to find the photos we want, when the main-category was crowded with mixture of subject-clear photos and subject-non-clear photos. If you think it is not needed, please ignore "including" category. --Clusternote (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep, should be more clear as Category:Cosplay of Hatsune Miku as background or some such. However, not clear that we should be maintaining this kind of categorization. Why even bother categorizing by something in an image that is not clear as a subject in the image. I get that there is no hard line between what is clear and not clear, or primary and secondary. Perhaps what would work better is sub-catting those images in which the subject is isolated (clearly the complete and only subject of the image). Open to thoughts... Josh (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clusternote: Do you mean to want to create a category similar to "Donald Trump with people"?--Kai3952 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kai3952: : Sorry, I'm not interested on this type of discussion. Before I created these categories, vocaloid cosplay category was crowded and need to sub-categorize, thus I created these. Since then seven years are passed, and new colleagers may have new ideas. I encourage you to try the re-sturcturing of the categories with new ideas. I'm not try to stop these. --Clusternote (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's self-contradictory to say that you're not interested on this type of discussion while at the same time saying you need to create sub-category for vocaloid cosplay category. If you're really not interested on this, why would you be spending your time doing things you're not interested in?--Kai3952 (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seems confused. The seven years ago and this year are not the same time.

• The reason explained above is as of seven years ago.
• And as of this year, I said that, if you have any new ideas, please discuss these with others (than me), and carry out these new ideas yourself.

From now on, please discuss this issue with others (than me). --Clusternote (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Kai3952: Do you have a specific proposal for what to do with this category? Clusternote (talk · contribs) has pretty clearly indicated that they are disinterested in the result of this CfD, so if you have an idea what to do, let's get this one moving forward. Josh (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Just move the images to their respective 'Cosplay of X' category. If we want additional categorizing, we can discuss it another time. He's had almost a week to respond. --Trade (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: --Trade (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a category for stations that Südostbahn owns (Category:Railway stations of Südostbahn). I think this category is for stations that Südostbahn serves but doesn't own; it at least would have to be renamed, and we don't have such categories for other Swiss railway companies. Mackensen (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of railway stations deserved by Südostbahn has recently grown. It now reaches from Locarno via Luzern and Bern to Basel and St. Margrethen. I don't think that we can categorize all railway stations after the railway undertakings deserving a station. There would be a similar problem with BLS.--Gürbetaler (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Mackensen and Gürbetaler: Any specific proposal for what to do here at this point? Josh (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner and Gürbetaler: I would suggest deleting it. As Gürbetaler notes, the category would be enormous, and there's the problem of maintenance. Ownership is somewhat static, but services come and go. Mackensen (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose to delete it. I found one case where a category like this might be correct: BLS took over ticket sale at several SBB stations where no SBB trains pass by. In such a case, BLS is locally present. SOB doesn't have such stations so far.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also: Category:Birds of California in flight

I think this category should be deleted. It feels less useful than categorizing the files by taxon. I get wanting to see birds of California, or birds in water, but who is looking up birds of California in water? It's a category that has ballooned in size, since it covers a very large possible range of files, and trying to break it up into smaller chunks would be a lot of extra work. Boylarva99 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep  Keep This seems like a valid intersection between Category:Birds of California and Category:Birds in water. There are certainly enough files to justify its presence. I get that it is a lot of files in one place to manage, but wouldn't upmerging to the parents make that situation even worse? Josh (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I only found this category by accident. Should there also be Category:Birds of California in air, Category:Birds of California on land, Category:Birds of California in air, Category:Birds of California in trees, etc.? Krok6kola (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: If they meet the same criteria that I outlined above, then I do not see why they should not exist, but what do they have to do with the price of tea in China, anyway? Josh (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the two are a relevant intersection. We have Category:People of Europe and Category:People in water but I don't think that justifies Category:People of Europe in water. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: That is a fair enough point. I guess what I'm getting at is that the justification seems to rely too much on personal opinion regarding the utility of any particular intersection. Those are valid opinions, but perhaps we would be better served by developing a more objective baseline for what justifies an intersection category. That's probably beyond the scope of this CfD but I do see the theme recurring in a lot of discussions. As for this one, there are a few specific tangible reasons I oppose deletion. First, as stated by @Boylarva99: , the category has a large number of files, which is an indication that at least someone finds there is some utility in this categorization. The OP also states that sub-categorizing it would take a lot of work. This work is not obligatory--it can be done by those who wish to in time--but deleting the category and upmerging into Category:Birds of California and Category:Birds in water would just move the bulk up into two categories and could potentially create a large number of overcat situations that would need to be fixed immediately, thus making the very work the OP is concerned about much more urgent and potentially doubling the volume of such work. The OP states they feel categorization by taxon would be more useful. I think that makes sense, but categorization is not exclusive to one or the other--we can categorize by both. Meanwhile, keeping the category does not appear to create any urgent problems. If it is not useful to a given user, there is no obligation on them to use it. For those reasons, deletion is more problematic than retention. Josh (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Your points are valid, and I think we should be more careful about deleting the hard work of others. On the other hand, this category was created in 2014 and it hasn't been replicated enough to justify Category:Birds in water by country let alone Category:Birds of the United States in water by state. I didn't look at every file, but of three random ones I clicked on, all were added to this category in 2014 by the category creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I don't disagree with that analysis. While I would not personally seek deletion of this one, I am okay if the rest of the team thinks it is warranted and not run afoul of the hazards I mentioned. I would like to see some better guidelines for these sorts of categories, but that is a discussion for a different place. I've changed my comment above to only a weak keep, so it shouldn't stand in the way of a consensus. Josh (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/04/Category:Birds of California in flight has been subsumed into this discussion. Josh (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed to "FN SCAR-H PR/TPR" to cover non-USSOCOM rifles Dvaderv2 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Subsuming Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/04/Category:People with Mk 20 Sniper Support Rifle ("Should be renamed to "People with FN SCAR-H PR/TPR" to cover non-USSOCOM rifles Dvaderv2 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)") into this discussion. Josh (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Dvaderv2: Is there any difference between the "Mk 20 Sniper Support Rifle" and the "FN SCAR-H TPR", or is the former merely the US designation for the latter? Josh (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh: I'm not 100% sure. I do know that the Mk 20 is semi-automatic only whereas the PR and TPR are or were offered in both semi-auto and select-fire configurations. Also, the Mk 20 and the TPR are visually similar if not indeed identical apart from the flash hider.

Having looked at FN's main site (offering the PR and TPR) and American site (offering the Mk 20), there are a few specification differences between the Mk 20 and the TPR 20" (the most directly comparable PR/TPR variant) but they do seem to be minor (Overall length of 40.5" to 42.5" for the Mk 20 vs. 41" to 42.72" for the TPR, weight of 10.69 lb. for the Mk 20 vs. ±11.02 lb for the TPR). Dvaderv2 (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dvaderv2: Thanks for that information! It would seem we have three different items here then, so I would recommend the following:

1.  Keep Category:Mk 20 Sniper Support Rifle for files actually depicting the US-designated Mk 20 version of the TPR. This would include any that find their way into non-US hands.
2. Create Category:FN SCAR-H PR if and when we have files depicting the PR version.
3. Create Category:FN SCAR-H TPR if and when we have files depicting the TPR version. Category:Mk 20 Sniper Support Rifle can be a child category of this one, as Mk 20s are a sub-set of TPRs.

I do not see a particular reason to have an umbrella category for PR/TPR, each of them can just live under Category:FN SCAR-H, so ultimately:

• Category:FN SCAR-H
  • Category:FN SCAR-H PR
  • Category:FN SCAR-H TPR
    • Category:Mk 20 Sniper Support Rifle

Some brief explanation in the category header might also be helpful. Josh (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh: Except that FN clearly regard the PR and TPR as being sufficiently related to one another to offer them in the one product entry/listing; I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that there are any differences between the two rifles other than buttstock design. As for the Mk 20, what you're proposing makes sense, but as something that FN America intended primarily for USSOCOM procurement, the only real user of the Mk 20 is... USSOCOM. Now, there may end up being some non-US examples out there due to FMS and other initiatives, but without explicit identification of such rifles as being Mk 20s they wouldn't be readily distinguishable from the PR/TPR at a glance, particularly if the vagaries of photographic angles and/or quality meant that markings couldn't be easily made out or indeed couldn't be made out at all.Dvaderv2 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dvaderv2: Understood, though it is enough of a difference for FN to give them two separate designations. It is kind of a moot point if we don't have any files depicting these. As for Mk 20 in non-US hands, I'm referring to not only FMS but to captured examples and other such (I wouldn't be shocked to see them appear in Ukraine, for example). I am not finding any SCAR-H offerings that are not PR or TPR types, do we have files of any such examples? Josh (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category is a mix of photos of the Marx Brother "Gummo" (real name Milton) and WW2 painter Milton Marx. Suggest renaming the existing category to "Gummo Marx" (this having been its original reason for creation, from its edit history) and moving the other photos to a new "Milton Marx" category. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest making this category a disambiguation category and qualifying the name of the new category for the painter. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Category:Milton Marx	Disambiguate	Wikimedia disambiguation category
	Category:Gummo Marx	Create
	Category:Milton Marx (painter)	Create
	as per Auntof6 (talk · contribs) a dab makes sense here. I believe it is normal practice for celebrities to be categorized under their public name vs. birth name. If this is incorrect, I am fine with "Milton Marx (comedian)" instead.
	Josh (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any clarification in Commons:Categories, but the other four subcats of Category:Marx Brothers are indeed Groucho, Chico, Harpo and Zeppo. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support the solution proposed above. Today I created Category:Milton Marx (painter) for the images related to the war artist. — WFinch (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not necessary category. This should be merged to Category:Seals of Lithuania.

More arguments why it should be done are presented in a similar discussion here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania (from the 13th century to 1795) and the Republic of Lithuania (from 1918) are different states. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For category Seals of Lithuania, the top parent category is Lithuania. For category Coats of arms of of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - Seals (included in Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Category:Coats of arms of Grand Duchy of Lithuania), the upper parent category is Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania are the same Lithuania. Exactly as the Kingdom of Poland and the Republic of Poland are Poland. By the way, we are discussing about unifying under a single name "Lithuania", not "Republic of Lithuania". Лобачев Владимир has clearly shown that his edits has nothing to do with the WP:NPOV and Commons:Assume good faith as he is deliberately trying to discredit a long-standing European state with simply ridiculous arguments. -- Pofka (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of name in this category. Which name should we use? "related to/against" "environmental issues/problems" A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: I don’t understand. Can you clarify what you think the problem is? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacklee: I wish to harmonize the category names. The subcategories have two differences: Demonstrations and protests "related to/against" environmental "issues/problems" As the creaor of this category, which name do you perfer? --A1Cafel (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel and Jacklee: Strictly speaking, the set "related to...issues" would be a parent of the set "against...problems", as 'against' is a type of 'relationship' and 'problems' are a type of 'issue'. Thus I would put Category:Demonstrations and protests against environmental problems in Italy under Category:Demonstrations and protests relating to environmental issues in Italy. If they are to be merged, then Category:Demonstrations and protests relating to environmental issues in Italy is the most comprehensive category and so should be the retained one. Josh (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the parent category should use “relating to”. The “against” category (and “in favour of”, or whatever wording we are using) should be a subcategory. As for “issues” or “problems”, I guess I prefer “issues” as it’s more neutral. However, I’m not sure if it is safe to decide this for all categories here without looking at some examples, because it might be that in some cases “problems” is more appropriate. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the same as / La même à 2 images près que : Category:Deportation of Jews from Marseilles 1943. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i'll use this cat as an example for several issues. RZuo (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i believe we should refrain from adding such cats when references are not given. they can be added only if the references are posted on cat talk page. it's impractical and exhausting to check whether such claims are valid, so i'll just assume everything is unsubstantiated unless proven otherwise and remove all of them.--RZuo (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these are most often not justified, and added by IP users without any relevance! See for instance the edit history of the 2601:81:4300:0:0:0:0:0/48 range. See also these edits on Category:Jess Harnell (no less that 30 absurd categories of fancy ascendancies of which the Wikipedia articles says absolutely nothing: Bahamian? Belarusian-Jewish? Cherokee?) or Category:Richard Pryor (descent from 15 different African countries from Guinea-Bissau to Ethiopia and Mozambique, none of which, again, are mentioned on the Wikipedia article). I suggest not to keep any descent/heritage category that is not supported by a statement with reliable sources in the English Wikipedia or another Wikipedia project. Place Clichy 14:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that wrong categorization should be corrected. I disagree that you need to open a CfD for that: Just go ahead and delete the wrong categories. In the case at hand, any justifiable category about Tom Hanks’ ancestry should be kept.

Please note that deleting wrongly applied categories from a file or subcat is one thing, while wholesale emptying and deleting categories is something else, and that would need a discussion.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"cast of movie xyz"/"movie xyz cast"... such cats are really dumb. for an actor like tom hanks he would be put into hundreds of such cats.

i propose the category tree handling the relations between actors and movies should be: "person xyz" -> "films starring xyz"/"films directed by xyz"/"films produced by xyz"...

also, we should delete the "xyz filmography" cats, because for most filmmakers they only specialise in a single profession. even if someone is multitalented, it's not necessary to create this extra layer.--RZuo (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well that these categories are useless. I opened a Village Pump discussion suggesting that placing actors in film categories, and films in actor categories, is not useful. Also, it creates forbidden category loops. Note that in most cases this information is (or should be) on Wikidata, and the Wikidata infobox provides exactly this information, with useful links. Place Clichy 14:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really dumb? You wanna go there? Well, really dumb is not using upper case letters, what about that? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this is important information + half the files are incorrectly placed in this category (not nude) Dronebogus (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

indiscriminate collection of files relating to a non-notable person Dronebogus (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Until the files of this person are deleted, the category should be retained to hold them. If the files are out of scope, their deletion should be requested at COM:DEL and once they are deleted and the category is empty, it can be speedy deleted at that time. Josh (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-educational category— Commons is not an indiscriminate collection of antiwar propaganda; redundant to Category:Action of solidarity with Ukraine (all subcats should be deleted too) Dronebogus (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The category should be just "Revolución Libertadora", as it is a period of time that already has an unique name. Year, place and type of event, all that be included in the description and/or infox and the parent categories. There's no need for this overcomplicated long name. Cambalachero (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful category Dronebogus (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from a couple of weird random categories that probably shouldn't be in here anyway like Ancient Greek brick stamps this seems to be a duplicate of either the main logo category, Category:Logos of products, Category:Logos of brands and a few other categories related to logos. Including it's parent category Category:Logos of companies. Also trademarks have to do with intellectual property law, which has nothing to do with any of the files in here. Except in the most non-meaningful way possible. Otherwise every single file in Category:Unidentified logos could be included in here. So my suggestion is that the files in this category, as well as it's related subcategories, be deleted and the files they contain be put in more descriptive categories. Obviously excluding the non-related categories like Ancient Greek brick stamps. Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Category:Trademarks and Category:Logos of products are two different things, though they have a lot of overlap. However, not sure that Category:Trademarks belongs under Category:Logos of companies as for most of history trademarks were more for individual craftspeople or guilds than they were for companies. In the modern day trademarks are almost always logos and very often owned or representative of companies, but that is only in modern times. Category:Logos of products and Category:Logos of brands should probably be children of Category:Trademarks, as well as Category:Ancient Greek brick stamps and other forms of trademarks that precede modern concepts of intellectual property. Josh (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If trademarks are almost always logos then how is this not just a duplicate of those categories? We can create categories for synonyms of the word "logo" all day, to account the extremely minor differences in the definitions, but after a point it isn't helpful and just makes organizing logos impossible. In this case the minor difference between a logo and a trademark is a distinction without a purpose, because for all intents and purposes 99% of the files in the category are literally logos, which is why most (or all) of them say they are logos and are already in categories for logos.

In the meantime calling Category:Ancient Greek brick stamps trademarks is stretching it since the concept didn't exist until the mid 1800s. Before that such symbols where considered seals. Which is why Category:Ancient Greek brick stamps is already in Category:Archaeological seal impressions. I see no reason not to just have it be in that category instead of every other one that is even slightly related to the concept of seals. With this category, obviously treating every random pre-modern symbol as a trademark would make this category unusable. I highly doubt anyone is looking for rocks from ancient Greece with random squares imprinted on them when they do a search for images of Trademarks anyway. Ultimately logos are already in logo categories, seals are already in categories for seals, Etc. Etc. So ultimately this category doesn't add anything to equation that isn't already being served by more descriptive ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide, trademarks can have have legal protections. They may require registration by some countries. This legal framework seems to add to this particular category's differentiation from other categories. Ooligan (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment "Almost always" is not "always", and thus the two categories are not duplicates. Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Adamant1: How exactly does the distinction make 'organizing logos impossible'? Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Your comment that the concept of trademarks didn't exist until the 1800s is incorrect. Trademarks have much older roots, early uses being cited in ancient Rome, and even several current marks go back many more centuries than you indicated (Stella Artois traces their mark back to the 1300s, for example). Modern trademark laws may be rooted in the 1800s, but trademarks themselves go much further back. Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Are all logos trademarks? Some are surely non-commercial that aren't copyright though most will be so I'm not sure if the distinction is needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Trademarks may not be a corporate "logo," but they can be. Logos may be trademarks, but not always. Both these categories should be kept. In the future, the United States Patent and Trademark Office may digitize it's full collections of millions of documents (This would be a great future Wikimedia Foundation Project/ Partnership). Then there are the trademark record holdings in other countries as well. So, just the surface of this subject is found here in Commons. --Ooligan (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "both the categories should be kept." I wasn't suggesting the deleting the logo category. As far as the patent office maybe someday digitizing their collection, I'd be fine with recreating the category when that happens. As far as I can tell there aren't currently any patent documents in the category though and it would be ridiculous to keep a category that is currently a duplicate of another one just because it might be useful at some point in the future. That said, if the category is kept there at least be a warning that the purpose of the category isn't for logos, but then at the same time if the logos are removed then it would pretty much be empty and be deleted anyway. So IMO it should just be deleted now. Otherwise, I guess I could just put all the logos in the other category and C2 it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I'm not sure if it changes anything, but I'll note that template:trademarked sets category:with trademark, so it's not as if Commons' category structure wouldn't currently have a conception of this distinction anyway. Arlo James Barnes 02:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. IMO category:with trademark is yet another reason this category is completely useless and redundant. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Category:With trademark is specifically for works which may have legal protection under trademark law in certain jurisdictions, not for all trademarks, many of which predate modern trademark law. Thus the two are not identical and a merge is not warranted. Josh (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say that but this category isn't about the general philosophical concept of a "trademark", whatever that is, since it's in Category:Intellectual property law. So it specifically pertains to trademarks as a legal concept. Given that, trademarks as a legal concept or otherwise didn't really exist until the 1800s UK with the Trade Marks Registration Act of 1875. Unless you count King Henry III of England's law that required bakers to add a distinctive mark to all bread sold, but that would be stretching it. There definitely was no "trademarks" in Greek times, as a legal concept or otherwise. They distinguished the appropriation and copying of comedies by other authors as theft, but that's about it. Things like potter's marks never had legal protection. In the meantime you can't just say any symbol on an object is a trademark. That's not what the term means and it isn't the purpose of the category. Unless you want to remove Category:Intellectual property law, but then we are back to my original argument that this is a redundant category because categories for logos already exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your reasoning. You posit that Category:Trademarks is somehow constrained by being currently under Category:Intellectial property law. However, that is incorrect as that isn't how categories work. Parent categories do not define the contents of their children. This flaw unfortunately undermines the conclusion you reach as a result. Whether or not it is part of Category:Intellectual property law does not change the fact that not all logos are trademarks, and thus either way, the two categories are not redundant. Josh (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parent categories do not define the contents of their children. I don't disagree, but they should at least have some kind of connection conceptually and semantically. That's kind of the whole point. Obviously no is going to advocate for putting a sub category of Category:Felis silvestris catus in Category:Neutron stars or whatever just because categories do not define the contents of their children. Get real. In this case trademarks are loosely connected to modern copyright law and they come out of it as a concept. So it makes sense to have Category:Trademarks as a child category of Category:Intellectual property law. Your irrelevant hand waving about definitions doesn't negate that. In the meantime I have yet to see anyone, including you, come up with a solution to the problems that originally led me open this CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1, Joshbaumgartner, Ooligan, Crouch, Swale, and Arlo Barnes: It looks like there are two camps in this discussion, with opposite opinions, which normally means that there will be no merger or deletion of categories and the discussion will be closed without any actions. But perhaps we can do at least something, like adding descriptions to the involved categories and making a better category structure.

1. What are good descriptions of the three terms, which show their differences? Can we just copy the definitions from EN-WP?
   1. Trademarks = A type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services (source: EN-WP), so they have to do with intellectual property law.
      1. Now I see that there is also Category:Registered trademark‎. What is the difference with just Category:Trademarks? Can this category be merged into Category:Trademarks? If no: shouldn't it be in plural? JopkeB (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
   2. Logos (of organizations, products and/or brands) = A graphic mark, emblem, or symbol used to aid and promote public identification and recognition (source: EN-WP)
   3. Brands [new] = A name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that distinguishes one seller's good or service from those of other sellers (source: EN-WP)
2. What kind of files should be in each of these three categories? How can an administrator (like me) decide in which category/ies a file should be in? How can you see from an image if it is a logo or a trademark?
3. How should the category structure of Category:Trademarks be adjusted?
   1. Proposal: Category:Trademarks keeps its current parents. Agree?
   2. Can Category:Brands also be a parent of Category:Trademarks, like in the EN-WP?
   3. Should Category:Logos of products and Category:Logos of brands be children of Category:Trademarks?

--JopkeB (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Brands" can mean the product its self while "trademarks" only tends to refer to the logo in the sense of a picture etc. These uses overlap but I'm not sure if we need to split but it may well be a good idea since as noted these are not the same. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this category is super obtuse and it's purpose doesn't make any sense. There's a lot of stamps and other things in here, like covers and block stamps, that don't follow the CPA Catalogue order. So I'd like to up-merge this and other categories with the phrase "all stamps" in them to the existing "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year" categories. Maybe stamps of the Soviet Union can be ordered by their catalogue number in a gallery or something, but this isn't the way to do it. A stamps number in some random catalog isn't meaningful anyway, which is why no other category for stamps is organized this way. Having one countries stamps organized by catalog number is just nonsensical. More so because the whole scheme gets screwed up when a file that doesn't follow the order of the catalog numbers gets put in the category. Plus it makes it impossible to put anything in a sub category because doing so will just create random gaps in how the files are organized. Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Название этой категории синхронизировано с названиями окружающих ее категорий и поэтому является оптимальным. Эта категория создана для: 1) учета почтовых марок СССР 1923 года для загрузки недостающих марок; 2) для поиска нужной марки СССР 1923 года. Важно, что эта категория является подкатегорией упомянутой вами категории "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1923", в которой могут находиться другие категории, в данном случае "1th standard issue of Soviet Union stamp series‎" и "First USSR stamps". Если категория "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1923, all stamps" будет отсутствовать, то почтовые марки 1923 года окажутся раздробленными по указанным и аналогичным категориям в общем случае. Марки одного года окажутся раздробленными по правилу Склада, по которому загруженный файл не может ОДНОВРЕМЕННО находиться в директории и ее поддиректории. В результате: 1) будет непонятно, загружены ли все марки данного года 2) возникнут проблемы с поиском нужным марок конкретного года. Эта СИСТЕМА КАТЕГОРИЙ успешно работает много лет, я с ней активно работаю, и менять ее не следует. Matsievsky (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you mean by "this category is synchronized with the names of the surrounding categories", but I said I'd like to up-merge all the categories with the words "all stamps" in them and "Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1923" is linked to the other Stamps of the Soviet Union by year categories. So the stamps will still be "synchronized" if they are in the parent category. The same goes for your other two points. People can still find missing stamps of 1923 if the stamps are in "Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1923" and there's nothing special about this category when it comes to searching for Stamps of the Soviet Union from 1923. If anything the words "all stamps" are just redundant. True if you search for "all stamps" in the search box it will give you only stamps of the soviet union, but that's not the point of category names. Just like I can't put random, made up words in the name of a category to act as a search filter, and that's essentially what your doing.

Outside of that, I don't think your other two points are valid either. Like I said, literally no other stamp category has the term "all stamps" at the end of it. None of them are "fragmented" and no one has issues with finding the stamps of a particular year for a particular country. I can literally find stamps of Greece from 1911 right now by searching for "Stamps of Greece, 1911." Nothing you said addressed the issues I brought up either. It's hard for me to care about what your saying or take it seriously when you completely ignored what I said. If you think we should stick to the status quo then you should at least address the reasons why I started this discussions. In the meantime I don't really care if your actively working on things in the categories. Categories don't exist for the purpose of a single user's pet project. Otherwise create a "Stamps of the Soviet Union uploaded by Matsievsky" category or something and do your pet project there. Or create a gallery for it like I suggested. You could do literally the exact same thing with a gallery in the main stamps of the Soviet Union category. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Вы не потрудились меня понять. Речь идет не о поиске с помощью инструментов или фильтров, часто такой поиск бесполезен. Речь идет о заходе в конкретную категория и поиску в ней файлов непосредственно, глазами. То, что таких категорий больше нигде нет, означает, что там категории не развиты. В почтовых марках СССР много категорий, например, с сериями марок. На каждый год приходится много серий марок. Вы так и не поняли, что обсуждаемые категории созданы не по капризу, а по необходимости. У меня сложилось, впечатление, что вы считаете, что сможете перенести все файлы из "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year, all stamps" в "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year". К сожалению, не сможете. Если бы это было возможно, я бы не предпринял столько усилий. Часть файлов, иногда большую часть файлов, вам придется удалить, поскольку они находятся также в подкатегориях категории "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year". Также с марками Греции я не понял, зачем вы вытащили файл из годовой категории и поместили его в общую категорию. Я вообще не понимаю, что вы делаете. Вы просто развели самодеятельность. Если есть вопросы - спрашивайте, вам ответят. --Matsievsky (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand you perfectly fine. I just disagree with what you said. What exactly do you think I got wrong? Because you still haven't said anything that addresses or disproves any of my points. If anything your just talking in circles. Like you say said isn't about searching for the files and then in the same sentence you said it's for searching for the files. Which one is it? "The category is a valid way to organize the stamps because I created the category" is just more of the circular nonsense. Also, how exactly can people not search for the files if they are in "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year" when they will have the exact same file name, image, and order? I'm aware that there are many series of stamps for each year. Putting the files in "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year" doesn't negate that, make it impossible for there to be specific categories for the stamp series', or effect them in any other way. So I have zero clue what your on about. Other then that my edits to stamps of Greece have no relation to this. If you have an issue with how I edited the stamps of Greece categories this isn't the place to discuss them. I'd appreciate if you stuck to the topic of this discussion and not make it personal or about other categories. If anything the fact that your looking through my edits for other things to discuss just proves you have no argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Начнем с начала. "The name of this category is super obtuse and it's purpose doesn't make any sense." Вы начали общение со мной с оскорбления. Затем вы утверждаете, а не спрашиваете, что цель категории не имеет никакого смысла. Я вам разъяснил, какой смысл имеет эта категория, что она необходима для удобной работе с файлами. Также я объяснил, почему в других странах такой категории нет. Мне виднее, как мне комфортнее работать с файлами, содержащими сканы почтовых марок. А про Грецию вы сами начали. Пример с Грецией говорит о том, что вы еще мало размышляли о файлах с почтовыми марками и не имеете соответствующего опыта. С марками СССР сложилась оптимальная структура категорий, которая проверена многолетней практикой. Вы единственный, кто недоволен. По поводу "галерей". Имеются другие годовые списки: 1) вами названный "the main stamps of the Soviet Union category"; 2) в Русской Википедии имеются статьи с описанием всех марок конкретного года. Но: 1) это не первичные, а вторичные объекты, которые основаны на категориях "Stamps of the Soviet Union, X year, all stamps"; 2) эти годовые списки содержат только "основные" марки как файлы в формате "jpeg"; 3) с этими годовыми списками неудобно и даже иногда невозможно работать по нескольким причинам. --Matsievsky (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all I didn't address the first message to you. Secondly, the purpose of this discussion isn't to ask you questions. You don't own the category. You could explain why the category isn't obtuse and how it make sense, but I don't see you doing that. I don't think your whole "there's no other categories like this one because there isn't any other categories like this one" thing is valid. If your going to push the thing about the Greece category, I removed the stamp from it because the purpose of categories is to organize multiple files, there was only one file in the category, and there's almost zero chance of there ever being more because stamps of Greece aren't in the public domain. What the purpose of categories isn't for is to just make parent categories or navigational templates look pretty. You should know all that though since your supposedly the expert here. It's ridiculous I have to tell what categories are for when your the one that supposedly has the experience and are calling me an amateur. That we don't create separate categories for every single individual file on here is pretty basic day one stuff. Other then that how Wikipedia does thing isn't relevant. This is a different project. Again, that's pretty basic knowledge that any amateur should know. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "the purpose of categories is to organize multiple files". Не только это. Еще одна цель категорий заключается в облегчении поиска файлов. Вы затруднили поиск файлов. Верните греческую категорию. --Matsievsky (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In no way did I make it harder to find files. Again though, this isn't the place to discuss my edits to Greek stamps. If you genuinely think there is an issue with my edits then take it up on my talk page or at least somewhere else besides this discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else maybe you can at least answer me this, say I have a 1960 block of Stamps of the Soviet Union that I want to upload and put in a category. Does it go in "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1960", "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1960, all stamps", "‎9th standard issue of Soviet Union stamp series", or "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1960, stamp series‎" and how exactly would I determine that by looking at the stamp I scanned and/or the titles of the categories? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)‎[reply]

• Очень просто. Как всегда. При загрузке файла на Склад вы помещаете файл во все подходящие для него категории. Если ошибетесь - ничего страшного, вас поправят заинтересованные пользователи. --Matsievsky (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't think you'd answer the question. So essentially, no one except you can organize Russian stamps. Sure dude. Obviously people can be corrected if they make a mistake, but that shouldn't be the default and people should still be able to organize files without having to dump them in the main category because they don't understand how the system works. Your answer is exactly why I said the categories are super obtuse and nonsensical. You can't answer a simple question about the categories or how to use them, and there's no other way to tell where to put a file. I don't know what else to call that except for obtuse and nonsensical. Seriously, categories shouldn't have naming schemes that require gate keepers. Personally I'm not going to waste my time uploading my collection of Russian stamps, covers, and other postal items if I have to ask you where the files go just so they can be half organized. It's no wonder I'm the only that has had an issue with the categories when you've acted this defensive about it. You clearly have serious ownership issues. Get over it. "You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff." --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Высокие стороны договорились о переименовании этой категории. Пожалуйста, закройте обсуждение. --Matsievsky (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Категория переименована в Category:1923 all stamps of the Soviet Union. Matsievsky (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed to “transgender people wearing cock rings” Dronebogus (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove “sex hormone creme” Dronebogus (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove “transgender” Dronebogus (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every single image in this category is a circumcised(?) penis and not related to the operation itself like every other similar category. Should be deleted as empty of relevant files. Dronebogus (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete All just photos of the same exhibitionist Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Category:Neerlands-Oost-Indie (1852-1857) by BUDDINGH	Move to/Rename as	Category:Neerlands-Oost-Indie (1852-1857 edition)
	Corrected title. Title is unique so no need for author name as dab (would be in wrong format anyway).
	Josh (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The correct title should be: Neêrlands Oost-Indië : reizen over Java, Madura, Makasser ... gedaan gedurende het tijdvak van 1852-1857 (see https://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/werkansicht?PPN=PPN674651154&PHYSID=PHYS_0009&DMDID=DMDLOG_0001), or shorter Neêrlands Oost-Indië (1852-1857) so with an "ê" (Neêrlands is short for "Nederlands") and without edition.
• I agree with you to strive for short, unique category names. But it does not bother me to have the author in the category name. Moreover, there is at least one other book title starting with "Neerlands Oost-Indië": Neerlands Oost-Indië, of Beschrijving der Nederlandsche bezittingen in Oost-Indië, by another author (Abraham Jacob van der Aa), published in 1846-1857, see http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/69225644.

So for me the only change in the category name should be to replace the second "e" with an "ê", and perhaps "Buddingh" instead of "BUDDINGH". --JopkeB (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which preposition should be used? Sunsets "of" or sunsets "in" A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I am from Portugal and English is not my native language ... so ... I will agree with any better opinion, best regards JotaCartas (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore name to English Electric DP1 This loco was always privately owned, never by British Railways. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a Name change, but please move this category rather than creating a duplicate category. Oxyman (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category and its sub-categories are unhelpful in that they hide large numbers of aircraft images from the main Category:Collections of aircraft by museum group. The idea was started by a user who left the project two years ago after tagging only 12 museums (there are currently 349 aircraft collection by museum categories). It is impractical to sift through all the museums and populate new military categories (it's possible that the creator realised this and abandoned the idea).

A further complication is determining what 'military' means. Many aircraft museums display aircraft in military markings but often they are civil registered and owned. Many military museums display civil aircraft. It is far simpler to group all aircraft museum collections in one category with no qualifiers. I am happy to populate the main category before deletion which I believe I'm allowed to do (i.e. temporarily have images in both categories as opposed to depopulating the categories). Thanks. Nimbus227 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The contents (categories and files) of the 10 subject categories have been copied to their parent 'Aircraft at X museum' categories as allowed by the template. There are now 321 of these categories with potential for more as not all museums have the standard structure yet (i.e. they lack any sub categories). Nimbus227 (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Structures like xyz-type of objects in abc-museum are widely known in Commons as to bee seen in Category:Collections of aircraft by museum and Category:Collections of military vehicles by museum. Specially in substructures WP-Germany has developed and the structures as Category:Military aircraft in the Wehrtechnische Studiensammlung Koblenz for museums to sort the enormous amount of unique pictures of this official Bundeswehr-Collection. We are still supporting this museum which keeps uploading more very unique material. Any destruction concerning this structures and content will cause irritation and harm our cooperation. Best Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Category:Military aircraft in the Wehrtechnische Studiensammlung Koblenz and its related sub-categories are being depopulated despite having a clear CfD notice with the wording Please do not make major changes to this category (or to categories and pages related to this discussion), or remove this notice until the discussion has been closed. This discussion is still open. Nimbus227 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

categories of double surnames should be banned Estopedist1 (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep @Estopedist1: I do not see a reason why certain forms of surnames should be banned and others permitted, what is the reasoning here? Josh (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley@Joshbaumgartner because the combinations of double surnames is unlimited. Unfortunately Wikidata has also item Wikidata:Q29042997. I would always break them down: Ungern (surname) and Sternberg (surname) in this case Estopedist1 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A double-barrelled name is still a surname. It's not some random cross product that Commons has invented on a whim. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: It is not unlimited. It is expressly limited to those such names which are used by people we have content on. That is and always will be a finite set. However, I do not see a problem with the compound name being categorized under its component names as you listed. Josh (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 and Andy Dingley: Any objection to closing this CfD, or is there anything new to bring to it? It does not seem there is a consensus to change or delete this category. Josh (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree that double-barrelled surnames are valid, and that we keep the category, I'm happy to close this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]