Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in March 2018.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/03.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2018-03.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Special forces units and formations

[edit]

Why do we need this cat if we have Category:Special forces? Sanandros (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because Category:Special forces watercraft‎ and Category:Special purpose triathlon competition (and potentially other sub-categories of Category:Special forces) are not examples of units or formations? Maybe I don't understand the question... - Themightyquill (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because we didn't need it as the special forces cat doesen't have so much subcats further more almoast all special forces units are categorized in an own country sub cat. If we cosequently would cat al SF unit in this cat this would lead to a huge cat with lot's of units inside.--Sanandros (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanandros: Because not everything fits into the "by country" category, what if we did this:
What do you think? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But wp defines "Special forces and special operations forces are military units trained to conduct special operations". We have in german wp two (actually three but that here not relevant) kind of categories which we call opject category and topic category. So in Object category we categorize everything which is acually a special force and in the topic category the we categorize things like Category:Special purpose triathlon competition. So the category could then be "Cat:Special forces by topic".--Sanandros (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A) That's not how "by topic" is normally used on commons. B) WP might define en:Military as a force, but Category:Military doesn't only include specific militaries. In this case, we'd be using Category:Special forces as a general category for anything related to special forces activities, and Category:Special forces units and formations for specific special forces. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artistic restorations of prehistoric life

[edit]

Is there a clear category definition here? Does any depiction of a dinosaur on paper, electronically or in sculpture count as an "artistic restoration"? And what are "life restorations" exactly? Thanks.? Themightyquill (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Life restorations are artistic attempts to recreate the life appearance of a prehistoric animal. So, yes to all your questions. Abyssal (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abyssall: How would you feel about moving everything to a consistent format:

- Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I simply prefer short category names and dont see the point in these new names. Kersti (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Abyssal and Kersti Nebelsiek:  Neutral. Categories' names harmonization is reasonable, but is "artistic restoration" good term at all? Comments eg user:FunkMonk?--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most subcategories have titles like "Tyrannosaurus life restorations", so these should probably stay in line with that, or you'll have hundreds more categories to move accordingly. Artistic restoration seems a bit too vague, while life restoration specifically conveys a restoration of a prehistoric animal as it would have looked in life. And importantly, it is terminology widely used in relevant sources. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So then we move all the "Artistic restorations of" to "Life restorations of X life" or just "Restorations of X life" ? and get rid of the artistic? -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since most such categories say "life restorations", that would be the easiest precedent to follow. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Paleoart as FunkMonk says: The easiest description to memorize and type should be preferred, but redirects should be left. This means however to create new category trees for "Paleoart of Cenozoid life" and "19th-century paleoart". The whole tree below Paleoart could need a re-consideration, though. --Enyavar (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diplomatic license plates

[edit]

This cat must either be renamed to "Category:Diplomatic and consular license plates" or divided into two cats, one for diplomatic and another for consular license plates. E4024 (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't diplomatic include consular? There's be a difference between embassies and consulates, but both are diplomatic missions, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some other word or phrase we could use that covers all of those types of plates? The "and" something-else-the-user-wasn't-looking-for in category names should be avoided if possible. (Remember how all building categories used to be "Category:Building and structures" no matter how small the location, even though all buildings are structures? They still do that on English Wikipedia.) --Closeapple (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closeapple, "consular" needs its own cats in every area. Have you ever heard of an "Honorary Ambassador"? (I mean in serious circles.) Consuls are consuls. They "may" or "may not" be diplomats. --E4024 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused. Can you give me any example of a consul or consulate that is not a diplomat? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consular immunity is generally less than diplomatic immunity: Consuls are often only immune for official acts; they can be arrested for serious crimes, and their families and residences aren't immune. By contrast, full diplomats, their families, their homes, and their vehicles are usually immune from any arrest, questioning, or search, except occasionally for self-defense. Many countries issue different license plate prefixes to mark whether a car is a diplomat's or a consul's. For categorization, this is more complicated than it looks, if we feel that we have to separate "consular" plates from other members of a delegation: (1) There are also plates for attachés in some countries. For example, United States license plate designs and serial formats#Diplomatic license plates claims (unsourced) that the U.S. issued "A" plates for certain international organizations with some kind of immunity; "S" for "non-diplomatic" staff (no explanation of whether that is consular staff, non-consular staff, or both). I see "CMD" as opposed to "CC" or "CD" on some countries' plates; I have no idea what the distinction is. So what do we do with those other categories? (2) What if country plates for international organizations or UN are different than for foreign delegations? Bilateral treaties between a country and an international organization often determines the international organization officials' immunity in that country. Do we want to have to research the treaty with each country to determine whether a certain plate indicates a certain level? What is File:License plate of Italy UNP • 147 • AA.JPG? (3) What if a country's plates don't make a distinction? --Closeapple (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closeapple, as far as I can see in Commons we have only diplomatic and consular plate images. Am I right? (It is simple, but anything simple can be complicated. :) --E4024 (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Closeapple and Themightyquill: this seems to be diplomacy-specific discussion. Are the current situation acceptable? Side notice: enwiki article is under the name en:Diplomatic vehicle registration plate (although first sentence use the term "diplomatic license plates")--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian bean

[edit]

Is there something called "Egyptian bean"? E4024 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. Per enwiki en:Egyptian bean is a common name of two species. If we keep the nominated category, it should be renamed to Category:Egyptian beans--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Çatalhöyük, Neolithic findings in MACA

[edit]

MACA? Please do not invent initials or abbreviations that do not conform with real names. E4024 (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MACA = Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara (But I do not insist on it.) User talk:Zde
I imagined. Can you show any reference to this short name? --E4024 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zde: MACA seems suspicious per Google search. I suggest to move this category under the name Category:Çatalhöyük, Neolithic findings in Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, and then delete this category--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conductor

[edit]

This should be a disam page that would include musicians and Category:Conductors (transportation). E4024 (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking Category:Conductors should be the disambig page and what's currently at Category:Conductors should be moved to Category:Musical conductors or something equivalent. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Themightyquill. The parent category Category:Conducting may need a similar rename. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently a redirect to Category:Conductors and there is a hatnote mentioning other similar categories. Even if this page becomes a disambiguation page, the hatnote at Category:Conductors is still required, so I don't see any advantage in doing that, but there's no downside either, and I don't object.
I do object to wider reaching actions related to Category:Conductors and Category:Conducting. Such actions are unnecessary and have not been originally proposed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Conductor has been deleted but the abiguity of Category:Conductors remains. Whether this action was originally proposed or not, Category:Conductors has been tagged for discussion since 28 March 2018. If we move to Category:Music conductors, Category:Musical conductors or Category:Conductors (music), there will no longer be a need for a hatnote. Category:Conductors will be a disambiguation page, matching en:Conductor. Subcategories will need to be changes as well, including quite a few in Category:Conductors by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with themightyquill and I'd suggested that Category:Conductors (music) is the preferred category because we don't call them "musical conductors" - they're just conductors. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024, Themightyquill, Auntof6, Michael Bednarek, and BMacZero: i intend to close this. personally i prefer "music conductors" as i find this most concise and natural, but i'm happy with any phrase agreed upon. so, what are your choices? RZuo (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to renaming Category:Conductors to "Category:Music conductors". "Musical conductors" is ambiguous – it might be understood to relate to the genre of musical. Note: there are currently 73 subcategories in Category:Conductors by country, and two gendered categories which probably all need to be renamed. I'm not sure whether Category:Signatures of conductors needs to be renamed, but IMO the other subcategories in Category:Conductors don't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that Category:Conductors (music) would be better. It doesn't matter whether it sounds better or more natural, to use Category:Music conductors is to adopt a very infrequently used wording over the common name (just google "music conductor" with no quotes). If we need to disambiguate a word from its other definitions, we should just use our well-established disambiguation syntax (parenthesis). – BMacZero (🗩) 19:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero, I agree with you that Category:Conductors (music) would be best. I was categorizing a file of a conductor within an artwork. The artistic image of the "conductor" lead me to search for that word- music was secondary. -- Ooligan (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croatia-Slavonia

[edit]

Merge into Category:Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia as per Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia Zoupan (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoupan: is merged. Should we rename the subcategories as well, eg Category:Counties of Croatia-Slavonia?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Roman cities

[edit]

Move to Category:Ancient Roman settlements? Cities would seem to exclude the "villages" in the sub-categories, as well as towns, etc. Themightyquill (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem to the change of the name to another more correct. My english is on a basic level. But "settlements" isn't like "sites"? --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DenghiùComm: Thanks. I guess "site" would suggest pictures of the site presently, whereas "settlement" could include images of it in ancient Roman times? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Generally in the archaeological language it is used "site" for any place interested in ancient time from the human presence. So it can be a city, a village, an isolated villa, a necropolis. We do not use this word for an aqueduct or a road. Unless it is characterized by the presence of funerary monuments, for example the archaeological site of the ancient Appian Way. --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I can't remember why years ago I had create this category, that I believe it's not useful at all. Perhaps because there exist the daughter cat Category:Ancient Roman cities and villages by name by country without the respective mother cat...? What could be the solution? --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a move to Category:Ancient Roman settlements would be fine. Seems paralleel to Category:Viking settlements. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the cat name Category:Ancient Roman cities and villages by name by country it's ok and I don't like that it will be moved to another name. We can move the cat Category:Ancient Roman cities to Category:Ancient Roman settlements. Is this ok? --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DenghiùComm: Wouldn't Category:Ancient Roman settlements by name by country make more sense if it's in Category:Ancient Roman settlements? I guess the equivalent is at en:Category:Roman towns and cities by country but our category doesn't include towns. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and DenghiùComm: the nominated category is renamed to Category:Ancient Roman settlements. The Category:Ancient Roman cities and villages by name by country isn't renamed yet, but the latter category has several subcategories as well, which all should be renamed--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved these in a hurry without carefully reading the discussion above. If there's still debate, I can undo my moves. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statues of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem

[edit]

This cat has the same meaning as Palmesel, so we should use only the other one. The Museums'site use it see V&A Metropolitan. Oursana (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a valid point, as this does seem to be (at least to a limited extent) an accepted name for this kind of statue. My only concern is that we have Category:Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Category:Mosaics of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem‎, Category:Paintings of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem‎, etc, which have a different pattern. Is an engraving of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem‎ a palmesel, or does it need to be a statue? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Oursana and Themightyquill: interesting CFD. I wonder why enwiki hasn't the article en:Palmesel. I don't know the topic, but before acting, we should be sure that all statues = palmesel, and not all statues > palmesel. Nominated category fits well into the parent Category:Triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Also pinging user:Elkost--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni, Category:Chelonoidis abingdonii

[edit]

Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni - or - Chelonoidis abingdonii. There are two categories for one species. - Kersti (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

same for: Category:Chelonoidis nigra chathamensis, Category:Chelonoidis chathamensis
same for: Category:Chelonoidis nigra becki, Category:Chelonoidis becki

--Kersti (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like English Wikipedia has decided to switch these from subspecies to species (following the predominance of recent sources). I guess we should do the same. Kaldari (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and changed the categories. As there are no live Chelonoidis nigra since ca. 1850, all fotos of life animals are from other species and should be sorted accordingly. Kersti (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be OK. Can we close this discussion, @Kersti Nebelsiek and Kaldari: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this discussion when I switched the species back to subspecies earlier today. However, I do think my edits can be substantiated. The Reptile Database, the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group, and the English Wikipedia have reclassified Chelonoidis niger as a species with several subspecies. This is apparently based on a study, according to which Chelonoidis niger diverged only recently. The classification of the Galápagos tortoises has been a lot of switching back and forth, but let's hope that a consensus is reached in the scientific community. That consensus is obviously what will be followed here, and the current situation seems to stand in favor of one species with multiple subspecies. --Paranaja (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2018/03&oldid=890555425"