Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/04
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive April 2010
Name is "Mm Telescopes" confusing. It is suppused to mean "Millimeter Telescopes", implying that it is a radio telescope. Hoewever, it was wrongly categorised as "Telescopes". I moved its content to a new category, "Category:Millimeter Telescopes". "Category:Mm Telescopes" is now empty and should be deleted. HHahn (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Note added: I removed the square brackets from the links in the above deletion request, as I did not manage to let tje link texts become visible. HHahn (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Poorly named, as suggested by Algkalv --Waldir talk 08:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- If this is poorly named, is there is better named category? Or is there no need at all for a category with landscapes of Greenland? --rimshottalk 06:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would say that there's no need for such a category. "Landscapes" is a very generic name. IMO it would be better to categorize the images by the actual content they depict (mountains, glaciers, etc) --Waldir talk 08:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 20:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposal for a new category
[edit]I have uploaded File:Merksem baksteen 1.jpg, File:Merksem baksteen 2.jpg, File:Merksem baksteen 3.jpg showing special brickwork. I put it in the Category:Facades in Belgium, but I am not satisfied. You could consider it architecture element, but ... I know a lot of other special brickwork, and once people start looking for it, there are many examples. The use of tiles is also a type brickwork. (In portugal they have many examples of this) And brickwork is not always on facades. And what about mozaiks? Or is this artwork. I propose a separate category: "brickwork and tile use" as a subcategory of Facades. (Paintwork and other non-permanent features are excluded) Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I wil start a cat: Decorative use of bricks and tiles under the general category: architecture. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Closed, no actity in a while, looks resolved. --rimshottalk 20:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This and the next below (Category:Animals facing right) have both just been created in the last 2 or 3 days. They don't serve any useful purpose; also, if kept, each would ultimately contain close on a half of all the animal photos on commons. I propose deletion of both. - MPF (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to delete these both categories, you also should delete: Category:Facing left, Category:Facing right, Category:People facing left, Category:People facing right, Category:Men facing left, Category:Men facing right, Category:Women facing left, Category:Women facing right ... We will have more and more of these combined categories because of the weakness of the user interface, not being able to combine two or more categories in a simple query, such as e.g. select x from y where category='Animals' and category='Facing left'. So, cause we cannot combine in queries we do combine in categories.--Frank C. Müller (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep I see no problem with these at all, and some people seem to find these useful in finding types of images they with to reuse. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)- Keep --Starscream (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete completely useless if every animal facing left is categorized. I could understand to have a category with generic images only (drawings, silhouettes), but as it stands, this category is not only useless but also generating category clutter. --Elekhh (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)- Keep It seems to be useful when it is full of pictures, more than 200. It is another category, and if pictures and categories are well categorized, it will be as usefull as any other. --DPC (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, no consensus against keeping, seems to be useful. --rimshottalk 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
See above under "Category:Animals facing left". - MPF (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem, and some people seem to find these useful in finding types of images they with to reuse. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --Starscream (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete completely useless if every animal facing right is categorized. I could understand to have a category with generic images only (drawings, silhouettes), but as it stands, this category is not only useless but also generating category clutter. --Elekhh (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to be useful when it is full of pictures, more than 200. It is another category, and if pictures and categories are well categorized, it will be as usefull as any other. --DPC (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, no consensus against keeping, seems to be useful. --rimshottalk 22:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request --Hettie (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The matter has been discussed here and here. This is one of these categories categorizing a country by year where the whole country without any segmentation by year would not even fill a whole page. Besides, the year (1984 in this case) does not give any relevant information other then that one of our contributors traveled Honduras in 1984. Since there hardly came any objections against deletion of these kinds of categories at the Village pump I nominate this one for deletion now to see wether there are some convincing arguments to keep working with these categories which were kept hidden until now.
- In my opinion this fragmentation in all those "by year" categories is useless, and makes it more difficult to find what one is searching for. Taxelson (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. You can use other categories too. J 1982 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, one should not do that, see COM:OVERCAT. Small by-year categories should be Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, one should not do that, see COM:OVERCAT. Small by-year categories should be
- Keep. You can use other categories too. J 1982 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a problem, can be of use. Infrogmation (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please specify that? I am spending quite some time already finding out why these cats can be useful, not to say indispensable. Hettie (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt an argument satisfactory to everyone could be made that ANY category is "indispensable"! I simply find them useful. Categorizing media by place is useful, because places are not all the same. Categorizing media by time is useful because things are often different at different times. Categorizing media by intersection of place and time is useful as the consolodation of these two points. Infrogmation (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is a photo of an archeological site, and of a river. Indeed, everything flows, but these images are quite timeless. See also the silly Category:August 1994. I would suggest that the people interested in this to work on a tool that uses the structured information in the date field of the information box, instead of fragmenting categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Pieter Kuiper. Here was mentioned already that in cases like this, it us not very likely that tracking changes over a certain timespan is usefull as well as possible at all. Pieter repeats the lack of usefullness here. I'd like to add the shortage of feasibility. Has there for instance been added any new picture of Limon in Honduras after the 1994 one? How likely is it that somebody will come to the same spot, make a picture and even upload it to commons within the foreseeable future? Or did any wikipedian travel the Rio Platano after 1994 and manage to recognize the same spot to picture and upload it? Apart from the fact that it does not really make sence to track changes on these kinds of spots, since there hardly are any, it is going to be rather impossible to realize it. Hettie (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no reason to just delete this among all "year by country" categories. J 1982 (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, that wouldn't make sence. I've chosen though to nominate just one of the very small "year by country" categories for now, instead of overfilling this page with a whole row of categories. Because that would not make sence either. I suggest you consider this single nomination as applicable to the other small "year by country" categories as well. Hettie (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- We can't delete a category just because we think it's "too small". Some will always be smaller than other. Year by country categories have the opportunity to grwow, soe keep it. J 1982 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- We are talking about categories which in my (and others) opinion do not have te opportunity to grow. Honduras 1994 is an example. The statement is that it is very unlikely that there will be added a significant number of pictures in this category, nor that there will grow categories which show the same locations in other years. That statement is founded with arguments above and on the other places this topic is discussed. Could you please found your statement that they have oppurtunity to grow? Hettie (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- We will never know that, let's say someone adds about politics, sports or wahtever. Keep it, and we don't need to restore it. J 1982 (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- We are talking about categories which in my (and others) opinion do not have te opportunity to grow. Honduras 1994 is an example. The statement is that it is very unlikely that there will be added a significant number of pictures in this category, nor that there will grow categories which show the same locations in other years. That statement is founded with arguments above and on the other places this topic is discussed. Could you please found your statement that they have oppurtunity to grow? Hettie (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- We can't delete a category just because we think it's "too small". Some will always be smaller than other. Year by country categories have the opportunity to grwow, soe keep it. J 1982 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, that wouldn't make sence. I've chosen though to nominate just one of the very small "year by country" categories for now, instead of overfilling this page with a whole row of categories. Because that would not make sence either. I suggest you consider this single nomination as applicable to the other small "year by country" categories as well. Hettie (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Pieter Kuiper. Here was mentioned already that in cases like this, it us not very likely that tracking changes over a certain timespan is usefull as well as possible at all. Pieter repeats the lack of usefullness here. I'd like to add the shortage of feasibility. Has there for instance been added any new picture of Limon in Honduras after the 1994 one? How likely is it that somebody will come to the same spot, make a picture and even upload it to commons within the foreseeable future? Or did any wikipedian travel the Rio Platano after 1994 and manage to recognize the same spot to picture and upload it? Apart from the fact that it does not really make sence to track changes on these kinds of spots, since there hardly are any, it is going to be rather impossible to realize it. Hettie (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is a photo of an archeological site, and of a river. Indeed, everything flows, but these images are quite timeless. See also the silly Category:August 1994. I would suggest that the people interested in this to work on a tool that uses the structured information in the date field of the information box, instead of fragmenting categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt an argument satisfactory to everyone could be made that ANY category is "indispensable"! I simply find them useful. Categorizing media by place is useful, because places are not all the same. Categorizing media by time is useful because things are often different at different times. Categorizing media by intersection of place and time is useful as the consolodation of these two points. Infrogmation (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please specify that? I am spending quite some time already finding out why these cats can be useful, not to say indispensable. Hettie (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I understand that the category grows when somebody adds a picture of whatever in it. But how likely is it that some wikipedian accidentaly has pictures about politics or sports in Honduras in 1994, and adds it today, in 2010? "We will never know", you say. I do have a suspicion. I fear that chances are that we will end up with one picture in a 1995-category and some in a 1993-cat, if there will be added any pictures about the ninetees at all (there were elections in Honduras in 1993. It did not lead to any 1993-picture. That might illustrate the chances that the categories will grow within the forseeable future). Besides, I understood the main reason to divide a country in categories by year is that it would be usefull to compare different places in different years. That won't happen, in this case, when somebody adds a 1994-picture about politics or sports. It will happen only when somebody adds a picture in some other Honduras year-category of the Copan ballcourt (which is very likely to happen, though in this specific case hardly any changes will be visible), Dole at Puerto Castilla, the banks of Limon, the Rio Platano (of which I do not know the spot exactly) or the Tela railwaystation. Adding a picture about politics or sports in 1994 will only be usefull if a picture about the same event or sport will be added in another Honduras year-cat as well. Though I think these topics are not really suitable for comparision by year, since that would be usefull for fixed locations rather that for events. All this of course still as an illustration of the debatebleness of all these very small by-year-cats. Hettie (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think every country shall have a year category from when pictures are uploaded. Keep. J 1982 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I consider that a "'tisn't" in the 'tis-'tisn't argument which I am trying to prevent. Hettie (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think every country shall have a year category from when pictures are uploaded. Keep. J 1982 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I understand that the category grows when somebody adds a picture of whatever in it. But how likely is it that some wikipedian accidentaly has pictures about politics or sports in Honduras in 1994, and adds it today, in 2010? "We will never know", you say. I do have a suspicion. I fear that chances are that we will end up with one picture in a 1995-category and some in a 1993-cat, if there will be added any pictures about the ninetees at all (there were elections in Honduras in 1993. It did not lead to any 1993-picture. That might illustrate the chances that the categories will grow within the forseeable future). Besides, I understood the main reason to divide a country in categories by year is that it would be usefull to compare different places in different years. That won't happen, in this case, when somebody adds a 1994-picture about politics or sports. It will happen only when somebody adds a picture in some other Honduras year-category of the Copan ballcourt (which is very likely to happen, though in this specific case hardly any changes will be visible), Dole at Puerto Castilla, the banks of Limon, the Rio Platano (of which I do not know the spot exactly) or the Tela railwaystation. Adding a picture about politics or sports in 1994 will only be usefull if a picture about the same event or sport will be added in another Honduras year-cat as well. Though I think these topics are not really suitable for comparision by year, since that would be usefull for fixed locations rather that for events. All this of course still as an illustration of the debatebleness of all these very small by-year-cats. Hettie (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I suggest closing this as "Kept" per no consensus to delete. Further discussion on guidelines as to when small categories are appropriate might be useful in some other forum on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which forum would be best? Hettie (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Commons talk:Categories might be a good place for discussion of how/when categories should be used. Check out Commons:Village pump for other possible forums. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Infrogmation. Just keept it, and end this discussion. J 1982 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- This has been extensively discussed at the Village Pump. Most people say that the fragmentation in these small categories decrease the usefullness of the categery system. Yet J1982 (whose username already indicates that years are very important to him/her) just continues. Discussion does not work. The only countermeasure is to empty categories, and the to speedy empty categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I know about the discussion but as long as the other "year by country" are kept, even this should be kept. J 1982 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- We are talking in circles. I gave you an answer on that on the 8th of May already: "I've chosen though to nominate just one of the very small "year by country" categories for now, instead of overfilling this page with a whole row of categories. [...] I suggest you consider this single nomination as applicable to the other small "year by country" categories as well." Hettie (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Who shall decide which are small? J 1982 (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Should the community agree that small by-year cats are not usefull, then the community is to decide where we put a line. Hettie (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Who shall decide which are small? J 1982 (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- We are talking in circles. I gave you an answer on that on the 8th of May already: "I've chosen though to nominate just one of the very small "year by country" categories for now, instead of overfilling this page with a whole row of categories. [...] I suggest you consider this single nomination as applicable to the other small "year by country" categories as well." Hettie (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I know about the discussion but as long as the other "year by country" are kept, even this should be kept. J 1982 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which forum would be best? Hettie (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I followed Infrogmations advice and opened a topic on Commons talk:Categories. So... let's make a move again, to that place this time. Hettie (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Closed as kept, no consensus to delete, no active discussion in a year. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This category was created in December 2009. It possesses virtually thousands of subcategories. However I don't really see the difference with Category:Art by year (created in December 2007) and its subcategories. --Teofilo (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think the "Works by year" category (as it is used at en.wp as en:Category:Works by year) is more general than "Art by year" which might be a subcategory of "works". It includes as well technical works like ships or others like books, etc. --anro (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- In fact there are quite few categories named "Category:art in yyyy". And the "Category:yyyy works" sytem looks more thorough. So let's go on like you say. Some books (poetry, novels) belong to literature which is an art. Teofilo (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think "Works" would be a general term, including say not only works of art but also for example postcards, magazines, letters, etc. Seems potentially useful to me. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Works is a wider term than Art and is also widely in use. __meco (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept more arguments for keeping than against and no activity in a long time. --rimshottalk 23:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
"Lakers" is a colloquial localism -- equivalent to "Lake freighter" for those in to the know. Laker is ambiguous -- also used for a major sports team. While "lake freighter" is not ambigous. In my opinion, ambiguous, colloquial localisms should be avoided when there is a an unambiguous term that can be used instead. There was a Category:Lake Freighter, stripped of members and redirected to this category, without prior discussion. I suggest both these categories should redirect to Category:Lake freighters. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is not obvious that "lake freighter" is any less of a localism than laker. So having either term used as the category seems equally valid. Searching google for the term lake freighter on .gov domains returns only 110 results. Boatnerd has very few mentions of the term "lake freighter", usually using the terms freighter, bulk freighter or Great Lakes freighter. Of those only Great Lakes freighter would serve our purpose but I would suggest just leaving it as is. The category and the gallery page with different names serves just like a redirect. Rmhermen (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just found - The Lake Carriers' Association, a U.S. industry group only uses the terms freighter and laker on their website and online reports, not lake freighter. Rmhermen (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lake freighters is a term with only one possible meaning. Lakers is both ambiguous, and is a word whose meaning is only clear to insiders. It has no surface meaning. Its meaning is not clear to those who don't already know what it means. I regard these as strong reason not to use it. Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Both titles are ambiguous as either category could conceivably include freighters that ply lakes other than the Great Lakes. It doesn't help that the parent category is Category:Bulk carriers (ships) (or maybe it should beCategory:General cargo ships which is where Category:Freighters redirects), and the principle of universality requires that subcats wherever possible use the same terminology. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lakers are a kind of bulk carrier, while bulk carriers are one type of general cargo ships. Rmhermen (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- From the roof of my building I can see freighters come and go from Toronto. Yes, today, they may all be bulk carriers, sugar, road salt, concrete. But, in the past, there have been lake freighters that carried other kinds of cargo. There were train ferries, for instance. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem including lake freighters from other large lakes in this category -- if there are any. If I am not mistaken the African Great Lakes are not connected by navigable rivers or canals. I believe the same is true of Lake Titicaca. If so transport on the lake is intra-lake, not inter-lake.
I believe the River Niger that drains Lake Chad, is only navigable by shallow draft vessels. Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake are deep. But transport on them, and down the Mackenzie River is via barges pushed or towed by tugboats. Lake Maracaibo is not a real lake, it is a shallow, brackish estuary, and transport there is, again, barges towed by tugs. Lake Baikal has (had) steam powered vessels, I've seen old pictures, in the less than 1000 ton range. What kinds of water transport is there on the Yenisie? I don't know. Geo Swan (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Lakers are a kind of bulk carrier, while bulk carriers are one type of general cargo ships. Rmhermen (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Like many of the CfDs from 2010 that made it until now without being closed, there is a good deal of talking and very little that could be considered actionable. There's no consensus for a move, so closing as no action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)