Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/10

Mis-spelled, new category created and image recatted. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rename as en:Tequilajazzz --Butko (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already speedy deleted by User:Butko. -- Docu  at 05:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dieses Fräulein "Katharina Boßman" ist zwar die Rheinische Kartoffelkönigin, aber das rechtfertigt im Rahmen des Commons Scopes (COM:SCOPE) meines Erachtens nicht die Aufnahme als eigenständige Kategorie, denn Katharina Boßmann ist weitestgehend enzyklopädisch nicht relevant. 80.187.103.28 18:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished that a nameless user who never did any other edit likes to teach about the Commons project scope. That's very hard to take serious. -- Ies (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sock puppet, nothing more? -- Ies (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you bring some arguments that show that "Katharina Boßman" is in the project scope? The way how you act is wrong: you bry to transfer this discussion to personal levels - which is no basis for a discussion - equal where. --80.187.102.113 18:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion with obvious sock puppets! -- Ies (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove it. All images are sorted already to Category:Rheinische Kartoffelkönigin 2010/2011 which is a good category for the event Category:Lüttringhauser Bauernmarkt 2010 and allows adding the event and the special contest to various interesting categories related to time, location and type of event. Making that a subcategory of a not notable person is not needed. The name is still preserved in the file description as many, many other people on Common who appear in some event related photographs but who are not subject to categorization themself. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in category name when I just made this category: 'Margot' should be 'Margo' (new category with correct name already created) Robotje (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{Speedy}}.  Docu  at 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in Category talk:Metro stations by city with three exceptions it only lists stations in cities where the official name for the local mass rapid transit system is "metro". It would be useful to have a category that enabled access to all the stations, by city, without regard to whether the official name was "metro", "subway", "U-bahn", "underground", or something else.

If this is the category where all the stations are to be listed, by city, I think the name of category is inappropriate.

A complicating factor in choosing a new name is that what are considered subways in one city might only be considered trams in another. The Rochester Subway, for example, was grade separated, but only used standard streetcar rolling stock. I suggest the decision should be based on whether the stops could meaningfully be considered "stations", and aren't just trumped up kiosks.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that categorising Underground, U-bahn, etc stations together with stations on systems called "Metro" would provide more useful categorisation. I'm not convinced though that Category:Metro stations by city is an inappropriate name for the category as "metro" is the generic term for these systems, at least in British English. Category:Mass rapid transit stations by city would also include (imho) things like bus rapid transit systems but that is not the intent of the current category. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is a Category:Rapid transit stations by country, so potentially Category:Rapid transit stations by city could be an alternative? 94.220.245.245 13:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if we created a Category:Rapid transit stations by city then Category:Metro stations by city would be redundant subset of the new category -- agreed? Geo Swan (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good and reasonable. Proposal accepted. :) --Jcornelius (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

español 186.97.64.183 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How should it be called instead?  Docu  at 04:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what's wrong about this category? tetraktys (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, nothing requestd here. Name is ok according to en:Manuel de Araújo Porto-alegre and pt:Manuel de Araújo Porto-alegre. --Martin H. (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No images. 84.61.131.141 10:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion- the correct category is Victoria Mills, Miles Platting (plural) ClemRutter (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Category:Victoria Mills, Miles Platting -- Common Good (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category was created with grammatic mitakes, correct "Fire engines of Tallinn" Dmitry G (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Speedy}}.  Docu  at 12:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what's the point of this category? Peter.shaman (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No valid reason(s) for deletion. --FAEP (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I guess Peter just wants to ask. Answer: This is a main cat. for several vehicles with that color combination (there are a lot more to come). --Mattes (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I actually believe it's pointless and Your answer didn't make this any more legitimate to me. FAEP go ahead and copy-paste the same "No valid reason(s) for deletion" if You can't make up anything more original. Some should definitely buy hosting and create their own galleries with naked girls and red/white land vehicles instead making mess at wikipedia Peter.shaman (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, Commons is a media repository, so it distinguishes itself from wikipedias through its many visual (colors, shapes, angles) related categories. So if you are dreaming of a purple station wagon, you can find it here. --Foroa (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless category indeed. Should really be done by the search engine directly.  Keep as that doesn't work yet.  Docu  at 11:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestion how to improve a search engine that it can identify objects and the colors it is painted in ? --Foroa (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are search engines that can recognize colors. Obviously, it's not Special:Search and not as perfect as categories, thus I think we have to live with categories for the next ten years.  Docu  at 20:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved all files to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shelby_Mustang as this category is too specific Peter.shaman (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No valid reason(s) for discussion or deletion. --FAEP (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This category isn't needed - too specific, makes only confusion Category:Shelby_Mustang is sufficient. Peter.shaman (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No valid reason(s) for deletion. --FAEP (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific category, Category:Shelby Mustang is sufficient. Peter.shaman (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No valid reason(s) for deletion. --FAEP (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific page, containing only 3 files. Peter.shaman (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason to delete categories. --Foroa (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No valid reason(s) for discussion or deletion. --FAEP (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so then this category, which I just created is also legitimate and should be kept: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bear_Mountain_Bridge_in_autumn_facing_north

I wonder how it is that anyone without reason can create most pointless category (only to make mess), but then if one wants to make order it's impossible to delete it and move pictures to the right categories. Peter.shaman (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep what is the deal, it's a subcategory for the GT3 version build by Matech Competition or currently by Multimatic/MarcVDS-Racing. I can easily upload more pictures of a GT3 version, especially the belgian GT3 from 2009, what does it changes?

Kept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this category is misspelled. 84.61.131.141 09:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Use {{Bad name}} in such a trivial situation

empty category Waihorace (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was created in error by me a few weeks ago.Jason Rees (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the correct category is: Onion domes in North Rhine-Westphalia Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category deleted, next time just use template {{speedy|bad name, moved to category name}}. Yarl ✉ 16:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although a 1928 work, it's not clear how this work is PD in the UK. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The entire work isn't, as CJ Allen died only c. 40 years ago. However no-one is claiming this (it's not on Wikibooks or Gutenberg, AFAIK), merely the images. None of the photos are his. Most are credited to a variety of anonymous railway company photographers. We are thus talking about effectively unknown photographs that were published 80+ years ago. That meets PD requirements in most jurisdictions, particular the US & UK jurisdictions that are most relevant here. Should any of the named photographers be traceable and demonstrated to have outlived the relevant dates, then there might be an issue on those images (and those images alone). Apart from C J Allen though, none of them are names that are known to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a claim that some of them are an unknown photographer, which assuming the photographer genuinely can't be identified would make at least some of the UK and European images acceptable. Images that are likely to have been taken outside the EU (or the Commonwealth) would need further comment. Looks like each individual image needs checking. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite every image having been checked at the time of upload you've seen fit to slate the category for deletion, and to duplicate this with scatter-gunned deletion requests on individual images. None of these photographers are people like OS Nock, Ivo Peters, or indeed C J Allen, who have obviously traceable histories, many are simply anonymous corporate photographers. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much inclined to respect Andy Dingley's care in uploading only images that fit PD-old. This is not only assume-good-faith, but assuming good faith and good care from a contributor with around 11,000 edits on Commons and very little controversy. Certainly the category should not be deleted -- there are many PD images in it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, as individual image have proven to acceptable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom, Kept. I have gone through the category and put DR tags on ten images which need discussion as the photographer is known. The rest appear to be anonymous or corporate and therefore PD.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This category covers the same subject as the correctly spelt Category:Mihr 'Ali. Grutness (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category deleted, images moved to proper cat. Yarl ✉ 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No images. 84.61.153.119 15:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time just use {{speedy|empty cat.}} template. Yarl ✉ 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to merge this with Category:Buddhism in Poland or renaming it to Buddhist buildings in Poland, but "Buddhistic" doesn't make sense. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Buddhist temples by country, so I've added raname request. Yarl ✉ 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary category, created by me Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time just use {{speedy}} template. Yarl ✉ 14:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.5566.com 61.180.66.188 16:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you spam??? --lovekrittaya (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, vandalism. Yarl ✉ 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

emptied in favor of correctly spelled Category:Flags with lilies   — Jeff G. ツ 03:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, misspelling. --rimshot^talk 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

80.87.92.48 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, inactive. --rimshot^talk 23:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

empty Ionutzmovie (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --rimshot^talk 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems to be incorrectly named: Would't it be better to name it Category:Barges on the Danube or something like that. The current category name implies that a barge called "Danube Barge" is existing but this is not the case - not in this category 80.187.102.68 14:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I named this category Category:Danube Barge. I should have named it Category:Danube Barges or Category:Danube River Barges.

I started corresponding cats like Category:Missouri River Barges, Category:Mississippi River Barges, Category:Hudson River Barges. IMO the name of the River is more important than the type of vessel. Names that lead with the name of the river sort properly when added to Category:Barges by river. Geo Swan (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in line with most of the other categories. In my opinion XXX barges count for a certain possession ot type. Beter to stay in line with most other categories, as will be: [[Barges on the river Danube|Danube]]. That makes it possible to make a lot other categories as [[Barges on the Merwedekanaal|Merwedekanaal]]. To be categorised in Barges by location by river or canal, just as the Category:Ships by location by country.--Stunteltje (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal of Stunteltje. A main concern of Commons' categorization is consistecy and the logical structure of category trees. I support the creation of a category tree with Barges by location by river or canal. But we must find a general solution that applies for barges on canals, lakes(?) and of course rivers. --High Contrast (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see support for a categorisation system. Rhine barges point in several languages to a type of ship (Rheinschiff, Reinaak, Reinschip). And what about a barge that carries the name "Danube Barge"? "Barge by location" category is probably not very practical if the location can be 100 meter wide and 500 km long. Barge by waterway might be more practical. --Foroa (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I cheerfully yield to the majority. Geo Swan (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with [[Category:Barges on xxxxx|xxxxx]] together with [[Category:Barges by waterway|xxxxx]]. How is the transfer organised? --Stunteltje (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Category:Barges on the Danube River was created, and Category:Danube Barge was changed to {{Category redirect|Barges on the Danube River}}, wouldn't a friendly robot eventually come along and move all the contents of the original category to the target category? Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to Category:Barges on the Danube River. --rimshot^talk 21:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May be deleted André Kritzinger (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Diesel-electric locomotives of South Africa. --rimshot^talk 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current name is confusing, I suggest renaming to Category:Mandelbrot set animations; otherwise, people may think that it contains videos about Benoît Mandelbrot. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would think that, and people do have eyes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Videos of fractals and Category:Animations of fractals. --rimshot^talk 14:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a clear need to have to build a shrine to prolific vandals such as this one. --:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. --rimshot^talk 14:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are beachripples? The category seems to have been created as a subcat to Category:Sandripples, but now merely holds images of water waves on beaches. Crowsnest (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ja, as the one to blame (I'm no native english), may be I did a bad choose - as it's not stable, we could remove it, if there's no specific english word für "sand ripples on the beach" - which geomorphologically differ from wind-made ripples and microdunes in deserts, as they are caused by water and wavelets (what might be "water ripples on the beach") - thats what I indended --W!B: (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi W!B. How to proceed? My suggestion is: rename the category to "Sand ripples (beach)", and reshuffle the images therein and in "Sand ripples" (which category name should contain a space between sand and ripples). But I am open for better suggestions. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the categories Category:Sand ripples (beach) and Category:Sand ripples, and re-categorized files accordingly. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Sand ripples (beach). --rimshot^talk 14:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category; replaced by Category:Ancient Roman olive mills   — Jeff G. ツ 05:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add {{category redirect|Ancient Roman olive mills}}  Docu  at 05:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the remains of this kind of objects, people speaks indistinctly of olive mills or olive presses. I proposed to delete this category because it is empty since april 2009. But now I changed my opinion: I agree that this category became a redirect to the other category. Or the inverse. --DenghiùComm (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category. It is ok to me to have it as a redirect to Category:Ancient Roman olive mills. What counts is that we have a category about this type of objects, whatever the name. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Ancient_Roman_olive_mills. --rimshot^talk 14:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

empty category Cathy Richards (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category has been removed because of this deletion request. Perhaps we should wait for the request to conclude before deleting it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. --rimshot^talk 19:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of Córdoba cities in the world [1]. Leave this as a disambiguation. --Alakasam (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I propose to move all subcategories to Category:Córdoba City (Spain). Alakasam (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen in en:Córdoba and en:Córdoba, Spain, Category:Córdoba, Spain is more consistent with commons naming conventons. --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that. Alakasam (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as disambiguation. --rimshot^talk 20:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a Córdoba province in Argentina (Category:Córdoba Province (Argentina)). Leave this as a disambiguation. Alakasam (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I propose to move all subcategories to Category:Province of Córdoba (Spain). Alakasam (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, disambiguation at Category:Córdoba. --rimshot^talk 20:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unused, unnecessary cat, only content was File:Cut-eye-Holy Trinity Column - Love.jpg, recategorized into easier to use cats Santosga (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 20:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unused, unnecessary cat, only content was File:Cut-eye-Holy Trinity Column - Love.jpg, recategorized into easier to use cats Santosga (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 20:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unused, unnecessary cat, only content was File:Cut-eye-Holy Trinity Column - Love.jpg, recategorized into easier to use cats Santosga (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unused, unnecessary cat, only content was File:Cut-eye-Holy Trinity Column - Love.jpg, recategorized into easier to use cats Santosga (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Providence, Rhode Island, as it is bound to be re-created anyhow. --rimshot^talk 21:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for discussion request: This category should be deleted. It was created by myself with a wrong name, since Elvas lacks a Cathedral church. Files in this category were moved to Category:Church_of_Nossa_Senhora_da_Assunção_(Elvas). Thanks, --Fulviusbsas (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elvas doesn't have a cathedral now, but indeed it used to have one, which is still commonly referred to as "Former cathedral of Elvas", even in the IGESPAR catalogue. Therefore your original designation is not incorrect, and should not be deleted, but turned into a redirect for the new category.--Darwin (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect added as per Darwin . --rimshot^talk 21:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed as non-lethal to match the recent Wikipedia article and category renamings Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. (Later note: See Category:Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons comments farther down.) See en:Talk:Non-lethal weapon. A large group of sockpuppets convinced an admin to change the name of the article to non-lethal weapon. Most real editors on that talk page prefer less-lethal to non-lethal. The previous attempt to rename the category on Wikipedia from less-lethal to non-lethal had more participation, and the decision was "no consensus for proposed rename. The target category remains a soft redirect. There was also no consensus in the discussion to move the article, so right now the two do not correspond." See: en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons. The last category renaming discussion on Wikipedia did not have much participation, and the decision to rename occurred even though there was no consensus. The admin at that category renaming may not have read en:Talk:Non-lethal weapon.

The Commons does not follow along with the many stupid mistakes made on Wikipedia. I don't think Wikipedia, and especially the Commons which is more international and less shaken by the winds of U.S. politics, should be used as a soapbox to announce the laughable belief that rubber bullets are non-lethal. It is not laughable to the families of those killed by them. On Wikipedia we may need to go to the next step in mediation. Most people on the article talk page want to change the name of the article to Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. I could support that for the category name. Mediation or arbitration may be the next step concerning the article. See: en:Rubber bullet.

Such "kinetic impact munitions" are meant to cause pain but not serious injury. They are expected to produce contusions, abrasions, and hematomas. However, they may cause bone fractures, injuries to internal organs, or death. In a study of 90 patients in Northern Ireland, one died, 17 suffered permanent disabilities or deformities and 41 required hospital treatment after being fired upon with rubber bullets.

Refs:

• Bozeman, William P.; Winslow, James E. (2005). "Medical Aspects of Less Lethal Weapons". The Internet Journal of Rescue and Disaster Medicine. 5.
• Millar, R.; Rutherford, W. H.; Johnston, S.; Malhotra, V. J. (1975). "Injuries caused by rubber bullets: A report on 90 patients". British Journal of Surgery 62 (6): 480–486.

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The weapons used against the IRA were primitive and weapons have gotten much more advanced ever since. Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is determined based on the merits of the belligerents and policy. This category should be renamed no matter how inaccurate it is alleged to be. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber bullets have killed many people and continue to do so. See the examples, studies, reports, etc. listed here:

http://www.google.com/#q=rubber+bullet+deaths --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose This controversial item has been moved back and forward, and will keep moving. Commons should try to be stable. A redirect can be used. --Foroa (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support It looks like the weapon industry/consumers are stronger in pushing the non-lethal weapons name than the NGO's proposing the less-lethal name. The fact that less-lethal might be (arguably) more accurate is not really relevant here; it is how the world and most wikipedias call it. --Foroa (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you bow to the weapons industries and consumers? Are you part of the military, Foroa? That might explain a lot of things, and your weird category names. Most of the world outside the military world uses "less-lethal". Civilian governments usually rule in most democracies. And civilian English is more common too. The military uses non-standard English like "collateral damage" instead of "civilian casualties". And "I.E.D." instead of "homemade bomb". Civilian police use less-lethal. Less-Lethal.org - Hosted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). But hey, if you want to kiss the military's ass, who am I to stop you. Maybe some other people will see reason. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kept my oppose for a long time despite the fact that non-lethal is more common and because I personally would prefer less-lethal. In the mean time, I investigated further which confirmed that non-lethal is the most common name and the "civilians" don't manage to position the less-lethal name properly in the market nor organisations. So yes, we have to bow for the industry and the consumers because they make the market. It is not commons that will change our world, we have to follow the world. And don't insult me by accusing me being part of the military. Next time, you will be on your own for such discussions. --Foroa (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. I usually give up arguing with you. And "less-lethal weapons" is more common than "non-lethal weapons." Look it up in Google. Asking you whether you are in the military is not an insult. Military less-lethal weapons. See this .gov article. "In October 2002, Russians used a 'non-lethal' gas (identified by them as the opiate fentanyl) to subdue terrorists in a Moscow theater, but in the process they killed 117 of about 800 hostages. An expert doctor, in a hospital facility, can apply an anesthesia with fair reliability. To do it safely at a distance is impossible. What were once called 'nonlethal weapons' were renamed 'less than lethal' weapons, and now the preferred and more accurate terminology is 'less lethal.'" --Timeshifter (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint, It will not be moved back and forth. Non-lethal is the term which has more common usage and the article will stay that way unless that changes. Commons should try to be stable is an opinion not a policy. Commons should strive to be consistent. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logic counts more than commonality. The logical name is "Less-lethal and non-lethal weapons". Category names are not based on using the most common words in the English language. Otherwise all categories would be named Category:The and Category:And. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Most categories on commons use the common name principle even though there is currently no accepted naming convention here. Example: Category:Lead pencils (should be graphite pencil according to your "logic"), Category:Tear gas (not a gas), Category:Peanut (not a nut), Category:Jellyfish (not a fish), Category:French horns (originated in Germany). Your strict, nonsensical interpretation of common name suggests you haven't even read the policy. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a choice between 2 names that mean the same thing, then the more common name is the one to use. Less lethal does not mean the same thing as non lethal. The common name for less lethal is less lethal. A rubber bullet is not non lethal. You can't just use a more common name because it is more common. It has to mean the same thing. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do mean the same thing unless you can prove it.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look up "less" and "non" in a dictionary. Or:

Less-Lethal.org - Hosted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). --Timeshifter (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on that website that provides a legal definition of what can be called non-lethal and what can be called less-lethal. Any website you conjure is going to be a minority viewpoint. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not magic or conjuring. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en:Category:Less-lethal launchers on Wikipedia has also recently been renamed. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed to en:Category:Riot guns. That is not non-lethal. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mediation. In the next week when I get some more time I am going to seek mediation concerning the name of the article on English Wikipedia. I had hoped for resolution of the naming issue without mediation. See: en:Talk:Non-lethal weapon#Mediation sought on inaccurate name. So the decision on the name of the category on the Commons should probably wait for the mediation to end. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

• Category:Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. Different branches of the government (police, military, etc) emphasize "non-lethal" or "less-lethal". The media uses "less-lethal". The .gov article is from Technology Review Online. Israel's Arsenal of "Less Lethal" Weapons is from Popular Mechanics. See also: "Less Than Lethal." International Defense Review 27:28-30+ Jul '94.

Even the military has sometime used the phrase "less-lethal" or "less-than-lethal". See:

Lorenz, Frederick. Less-Lethal Force in Operation United Shield. Marine Corps Gazette 79:68-76 Sep '95. Also available online at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=5024739&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=417&RQT=309&VName=PQD

I think this book chapter has the best idea:

U.S. Intervention Policy for the Post-Cold War World. New York, Norton, 1994. 256p. New applications of Nonlethal and Less Lethal Technology, by Richard Garwin, pp 105-131. Book call no.: 327.73009049 U582

Rather than decide to support the labeling of the media, or the police, or the government, we can label the category Non-lethal and Less-Lethal weapons. I think it makes a lot more sense to support reason. And reason states that we shouldn't continue to deny reality, as does the military, and Wikipedia shouldn't decide how lethal or non-lethal each weapon is. Let the readers decide. High-pressure water will kill someone if it pushes them in such a way that they fall and fracture their skull, or they fall against a sharp object like the top of some iron fences. As the Technology Review Online article said "Truly nonlethal weapons do not exist. When the Lone Ranger whacked a bad man on the skull with the butt of his gun, most viewers assumed (incorrectly) that it causes no more than a few minutes of healthy unconsciousness. In reality, it is tricky business to disable without killing."

"less-lethal weapons" - 194,000 results

"non-lethal weapons" - 177,000 results. See en:WP:COMMONNAME: "The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common."

Why not use the most accurate name: Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. That is accurate since most of the weapons can be both lethal and non-lethal. Some of the weapons are rarely lethal, if ever. The line is hard to draw. People die from complications of weapon use such as falling, suffocating from restraint positions, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police worldwide may look for these weapons under the name "Less-lethal weapons". The military worldwide may look for "Non-lethal weapons". So I went ahead and created another category:

Category:Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons

In the meantime I will not delete other categories, such as Category:Less-lethal weapons, and Category:Non-lethal ammunition, and Category:Non-lethal weapons, from files and sub-categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned clause of common name have now been removed. The clause was originally included with a different intention (disambiguation) but the meaning of it was warped over time. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this dead discussion. The discussion was inconclusive, but there doesn't seem to be any urgent need to rename the category, since "less-lethal weapons" is a reasonably common term, and "non-lethal weapons" has a redirect. ghouston (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Question and Macedonian name. Also the problem with the Macedonian ethnic minorities in the Balkan states Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia DraganKitanoski (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category has been redirect to Category:Macedonian people, which is treated as an ethnic group. ghouston (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem should be deleted and replaced by Category:Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem GFreihalter (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by what? Olivier2 (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the links in User:GFreihalter text to make it understandable.Olivier2 (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the Category name: Category:Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem is for stations of the cross. Category:Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem is for the representations of this theme in general. Olivier2 (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no representation of Jesus meets the Women of Jerusalem in general. It is always part of the en:Stations of the Cross: Category:Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem. This category may have the following subcategories: Category:Stained glass windows of Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem, Category:Paintings of Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem, Category:Sculptures of Station 8: Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem--GFreihalter (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected as requested by GFreihalter. The category was nearly empty anyway. ghouston (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please asap get rid of this whole "flat category" mess? The category tree is hierarchic.

• First there is a category loop, Category:Categories by city is a parent category of Category:Categories by city (flat list) as well as the second is a parent of the first too. That loop comes from templates and requires a fix.

• Second one simple example in Category:Categories by city (flat list). That category contains Category:Buildings in New Zealand by city and Category:Buildings in New Zealand by function by city as parents, the first however is the parent category of the second too, thats an textbook example of COM:OVERCAT and how it not works.

• Third, in order to resolve the second problem, this OVERCAT problem forbids to include Category:Buildings in New Zealand by function by city in the flat list. It must be removed, and removing all overcat problems in all flat categories consequently will result again in an hierarchic category tree and thats what we already have with Category:Categories by city.

So its simple to show that Category:Categories by city (flat list) as well as any other flat list category is superfluously and redundant to their valid twin categories e.g. Category:Categories by city. Create a Commons namespace list of categories if you need this but stop messing up the category tree with them. Martin H. (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The loop is intentional. A category meant to contain *all* "by xxx" should rightly contain itself if it matches that criterion.
2. They're called "flat" for a reason. They aren't hierarchical as stated in the template header.
3. These are hidden maintenance categories that are not part of the regular tree so COM:OVERCAT doesn't apply (in fact, the goal of flat categories is the exact opposite).
4. Usefulness? That's debatable. However, for the sake of example, take Category:Taxon categories, which is also a flat category. I was recently asked to correct a bunch of sortkeys with my bot. This wouldn't have been possible if I didn't have a nice flat category to generate a list from.
5. These categories are populated and depopulated instantly via editing a template. The whole system can be destroyed in seconds. The only manual work would be deleting the emptied categories.
6. There has been plenty of discussion about these type of categories already, e.g. this mess of a discussion.

-Rocket000 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) The loop should be removed. 2) The category system simply is hierarchical and not flat. COM:CAT#Purpose of categories in Wikimedia Commons. 3) This are not maintenance categories, and thats part of the biggest problem. My example Category:Categories by city (flat list) is sorted into its twin (topic) category Category:Categories by city by the template, this making it a topic category and creating an overcat mess. 4) The same use can be generated with lists. This list can have much more use, e.g. translations so that they will realy help people to find something. Dont blow the category tree up with maintenance - especially not with maintenance that has only the purpose to look if anything is correctly categorized. Temporarily yes, a permanent maintenance structure for that is unnecessary. 5) Thats nice 6) that discussion goes much about countries and the differences between Belgium and Italy. The discussion is dead, the real concern - no flat categories within the category tree Category:Topics and no mirroring of all categories with all their content into the maintenance category of Category:Commons, which is not the purpose of the maintenance category tree too, is unanswered in that discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These types of categories are created because Commons has no tools to generate and maintain category lists, which are very interesting to do maintenance and verification. Most of the time, maintenance is not interested in the hierarchy of things (like many global by name categories, meta categories, ..). The nice thing about it is that they are auto-generated and fairly complete. Those type of categories should disappear once Commons has the tools to dynamically generate such lists. In the remainder, I discuss only about the specific "by city" case.

Category:Categories by city has been created long time ago as a maintenance category. It is manual and is probably not consistent with its twin brother. It requires people to know it and to maintain it and it gives only access to a subset of Category:Categories by city (flat list).

Category:Categories by city (flat list) is autogenerated and tends to be consistent with the actual situation. In principle, no need for human intervention.

From the above, it is clear that we better remove the manual Category:Categories by city which can only simplify user tasks and decrease maintenance. --Foroa (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the missing tool: Does the absence of a personaly prefered tool to do maintenance task justify such changes in the category structure of Commons permanently? I think not. Especially not if something is autogenerated, in this case it would be very simple to export the maintenance information to lists etc and not to distort the category system with it. We have Special:Search and also in the past before flat mania started we were happy with the existing tools. The difference between this two categories is, that one is hierarchic and the other is not but if the flat category is corrected according to COM:OVERCAT I assume that it will be exactly the same as Category:Categories by city. The point here is that Category:Categories by city (flat list) is fully redundant to the existing category, that it will be a violation of our category concept if in topic tree and that it will be unecessary if in maintenance tree. While the existing category tree is valid in the topic categories. If you have a problem with such meta categories in general or think that they are not desired you may start a discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure where to put this comment, but I support keeping the flat list categories. I recently did some metacategory cleanup that would have been much harder without those categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a very irritating factor, so lets for a moment forget the discussion above. For the sake of the discussion, what is your position on Category:Categories by country and more specifically its subcategory Category:Categories by country (flat list) ? --Foroa (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for my personal opinion: Its exactly the same problem. Category:Categories by country is the appropriate category, Category:Categories by country (flat list) should not be a subcategory of Category:Countries (or to be unspecific: Category:Topics) but it is one at the moment. Category:Categories by country seems not well developed, e.g. all the decades and years categories are not sorted to it at the moment. But thats no problem, add Category:History by country to it and the whole hierarchy of 'centuries in', 'years in' and 'decades in' is added in an hierarchic way. Doing this, all Category:Categories by country (flat list) subcategories starting with numbers are overcated in Category:Categories by country and require removel from the flat list so that only Category:History by country remains in the flat list which makes it a duplicate to its non-flat twin Category:Categories by country. The well developed Category:Categories by country will have as many subcategories "by country" as we have high level topic categories in Category:Topics, provided that a topic has intersections with a geographic order. --Martin H. (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of personal hypothesises. So, if I am reading well, Category:Categories by country should be an echo or some sort of duplicate of the Category:Topics trees. What will you do about discontinuities in Category:Topics : very few topics have a by country sub category, and those are, most of the time, not connected between each other, so there will be plenty of holes and orphaned "by country" cats.

The tree you imagine will be completely different than what you find for example in Category:Germany or in any other country. --Foroa (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any problem with Category:Meta categories ? --Foroa (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its just an hypothesis and not for discussion here because it not makes a flat category more valid or usefull. Asuming that the category tree is perfect and that topics realy include all topics hierarchically then a 'topic by country' category tree will have the same structure 'by country' as the topic category already has because any other structure will have a missing category cascade or overcat at some place in the category tree - again: assumed the category tree is complete and perfect, something it never will be. I also dont talk about Category:Countries but about Category:Categories by country, I dont know how you come to any specific country example or even Germany, thats something completely different. We talk about the uselessnes of flat categories here and the redundancy to the already existing categories inside the topic category tree. --Martin H. (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what we need. More input from others outside our little circle of category maintenance workers. We obviously have different ideas about the appropriateness (and usefulness) of these flat/non-hierarchical/COM:OVERCAT-violating/pseudo-maintenance/index/(meta-)meta categories. I don't think more discussion is going to change our views (I'm pretty sure we are all equally set in our beliefs regarding this aspect of our category system). This is what we call "no consensus". However, we are not representative of Commons as a whole so it wouldn't be right to close this (or Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Countries by category) as "no consensus", i.e. defaulting to keep (I know it's too early anyway but I'm not anticipating any type of satisfying conclusion). I would love to hear what the "common user" (someone that uses categories more than manage/create/rename/categorize them) thinks about these categories and if they find them to be damaging or incompatible to our main category system. If we can get more views from more users, I'll be happy to finally decide on this issue one way or another. This perpetual limbo state is just irritating. I much rather have a consensus in favor of deleting these than no consensus at all even though I support keeping them (or at least support the idea of some form of flat categories). Rocket000 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have been building on the "categories by country" since many years, passing over the "Categories by country by alphabet" to the current "categories by country (flat list)". The need of the category has never been challenged, nor a better organisation scheme has been proposed. I think that the main factors of irritation are the following:

• The category names: there was never a consensus about the name. To me, flat list is not a correct name, even misleading; it should probably better be contained in "meta categories by topic" and called "meta categories by country" or something the like.
• All those categories in the meta categories concerning dates and history are enormous and upfront in the category , and are probably irritating because for most people, they are secondary categories at best. A trick to put them in the back of the category and/or collect only the top level ones might improve that, although I am often using such categories to find the correct definition and templates for the missing years. --Foroa (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"By country" is a good example. It proves that such categories are needed. However, I'd rather see a consensus that they are not to be created except. I.e. those that have been created "just for completeness/shit and giggles/the hell of it" will be mercilessly deleted. While those that take out a major logically chunk of subcategories from the main cat will be kept. E.g. eventually we might find it worthwhile to make "Birds of Brazil by state" or "Birds of Brazil by taxon" in Category:Birds of Brazil. But not now, and any attempt wil be shot down. Because we have to see first which one is better. There are a certain number of states, so these could be the main content of "Birds of Brazil". But there are many taxa where we might never get decent material.

So a "ground rule" might be: cull any such categories if redundant whenever straightening out the tree, and make new nonhierarchical categories only when needed. Cat-sorting and tree-pruning be heavily prejudiced over spawning new categories.

Because the actual problem of Commons is undercategorizzed content, not undercategorized categories. The hierarchical trees work very well in most cases, and we have a nascent "X by y" system we can build on. To expand it "just so" while perhaps 40% of Commons files are seriously under- or miscategorized and maybe 10% are fully uncategorized and another 10% almost so is pointless. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object neither if the meta categories that have a parent meta-category with the same "by topic", are not added to the concerned meta categories. I guess that this will be tricky to do and should not invalidate the automated approach, which is the strong point of the current system as it avoids many human mistakes and maintenance work.

I agree that maybe more parties should be involved in the discussion, but I feel that we should first address the points above. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is flat misleading? Because it's a category and not a list or because they are somehow not flat? I'm not completely in love with the name either but I had to choose something and people didn't like my "all" suggestion. Names like "meta categories by topic" don't imply it's non-hierarchical which is very important to avoid having people start subcategorizing like they were with the "by alphabet/name" ones.

Just as the parent Category:Meta categories, most cats in Category:Maintenance data structures and many by name categories: they state what they contain and have no all/list/flat qualifier. Those cats are auto-populated, so little risks on further subcatting as in some unfortunate "by name" cats. --Foroa (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but why is it misleading? Rocket000 (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really see the date categories as a problem since these aren't designed with browsing in mind. It's a complete listing and that is all—the organization is irrelevant. That's what the equivalent hierarchical meta category is for. If the date categories are annoying you're using the wrong category. Use (for example) Category:Categories by country not Category:Categories by country (flat list). Unfortunately, no one seems to maintain these meta-categories. If anything, the flat list categories can help aid in the development of the non-flat meta-categories. If these were filled properly and completely there would be no need for flat categories since you could easily generate a flat list recursively (with catscan or AWB). Rocket000 (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with "i.e. defaulting to keep" - So I can create a mess in the category system and then I can keep it because the participation in a discussion is too low there is no participation in category structure matters at all? No. Just take a look at the category tree from my seconsd example buildings in New Zealand by function by city (or any other example). The mess is located in the middle of the graph. The only purpose of the flat categories is one arrow showing upwards - something that will not exist in an hierarchic structure, a circle reference in itself, an arrow from and an arrow to the perfect substitue category, and - if the other maintenance categories are correctly sorted - some textbook examples of COM:OVERCAT e.g. at the far right of the (temporary, unstable) graph. The logic consequence is to get rid of the 'flat categories' and not to leave the category tree in this poor condition because of "no consensus". There is a consensus, that consensus is old but that consensus is our base for all category work done so far. The consensus is: Hierarchy. If you want to increas the overview over the categories, I repeat, create lists or link them better with navibars, galleries, maintenance pages, etc. An attempt to make something more easy to understand and destroying it thereby can not be a very good sollution. --Martin H. (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confused: What happen to all the Category:Flat categories? I think they are very useful and should be restored. --Jarekt (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Very useful indeed, they are there since 18 months, so no reason to unilaterally remove them because one single person don't like them. But it is the moment to clear out the flat categories that have been added by "hand" before restoring the "automatic" ones. Could you run a bot on that ? --Foroa (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is consensus for such a move. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly  Oppose to the emptying of flat lists ! The work with categories is not unnecessary complicated if we have few "flat lists" or some "Category of categories". 90,99 % of all categories are organized by tree. This other categories are only for maintenance. Who works to order categories, or try to bring consistency in categories, know that these categories are very important and useful. Who doesn't work on categories, and propose only an ideological pattern, will never understand this. --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you not yet understood that categories are not lists. I find lists very usefull, I sometimes use list myself. I however not see a need to change the whole category structur for my personal needs without beeing even able to explain my needs (see Rocket000 above: Usefulness? That's debatable.) against a long existing consensus and without thinking about alternatives. Many WikiProjects use category lists, however: lists, not categories. Lists, because anyone can see if something was removed, thats something you cant do with categories. Lists that not intrude the category structur and not break all other tools that are based on the long-standing hierarchic structur. --Martin H. (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List are not an alternative for categories that dynamically build up as they are created. Maybe the day that we have sufficient tools that allow to dynamically create lists. The flat lists are maintenance categories and like all other hidden maintenance categories, they break nothing nor tools. --Foroa (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats untrue, as long as Category:Categories by city (flat list) is sorted to a topic category (Category:Categories by city) it is not a maintenance category. And thats the problem: With Category:Categories by city it has a category loop (!!) that annihilates any attempts or tools that count media files. And it destroys all attempts to avoid overcat in the category tree, such problems are not longer so easy to detect because all content in Category:Categories by city (flat list) is overcat. Also "dynamically build up as they are created" is also untrue. It still needs someone who create it correctly with the right parameters. Therefore there is no difference between asking editor to add a parameter to a template or to add their category to a list. --Martin H. (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is only a category loop between the simple category and his flat list, it's sufficient to delete the (sub-)categorisation of the flat list in the simple category, and then to create a pure Maintenance category, where to put these special categories (flat lists; categories of categories; etc.). There are some yet: Category:Deutsche Fotothek maintenance categories, or Category:Category maintenance templates. Our possible category exist yet: Category:Category maintenance meta categories. We can use it ! (then, if necessary, we can change his name, if it's useful...) --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that some users have made it a habit to spam out these categories en masse, and in blunt disregard of the existing category structure. (Re Foroa: this is why I think the link in the metacategory template is the worst thing that happened to Commons at least since someone separated the "Extinct" and "Fossil" catgories... it encourages novice users to categoryspam and is the last straw that wannabe categorization "geniuses" need to go into full category kamikaze mode)

There are times when I think a mass ban of users who try to enforce their own wretched structure and refuse to build on what is already established as working is the only solution... but that's too harsh ;-) however, some categories are definitely messed up. Scientific journals are, for example, by now spread over 2 different subtrees which are not really connected and each contain dozens of items that would need to be moved for integrating them back again.

The amount of incentive and work required to destroy the category structure has become vastly lower than the amount of work to correct this. This needs to be amended. Urgently. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Still nothing, huh? Haven't looked into the problem Dysmorodrepanis mentioned, but I just checked Category:Flat categories and it looks pretty much like it did a year ago. The pre-existing categories may now be more thoroughly populated but only a few new ones have been added (and are similar in scope as the others, so belong). So I'll assume D. is referring to meta categories and not flat categories (which categorize metacats, probably including those categories that are seen as the problem). On that subject, I agree some users go a bit (a lot) overboard with creating them. However, since we can't even finish a discussion on a much much smaller group of categories that are fully template-controlled (i.e. can be completely dissolved by editing a template and no other manual work except for deletion of the resulting empty cats), I doubt we could tackle the whole system of meta categories on any kind of comprehensive level. Instead, each problem category (or area) would need to be dealt with individually. Don't think this discussion is/was an attempt to rid of the whole notion of "meta" categories. People creating (spamming) excessive and useless messy categories is always a problem, meta in nature or not. Rocket000 (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. It is difficult to get a clear idea about the situation as there are many (hundreds, thousands ?) "xxx by yyy" categories that are not properly declared as meta categories. (Hint for your bot ;). --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some day, some day.. :) I haven't look at my bot setup once in the last year nor have stayed up to date on mediawiki changes. I'm sure it'll take some work to get running again but I definitively plan to due some thorough maintenance of the categories. Rocket000 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Being away from your online life for a period of time gives you new insight upon returning. It just stuck me how odd it is that I actually enjoy doing things like maintaining maintenance categories. Something about the metaness of it... Rocket000 (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this dead discussion. The flat categories are now marked as hidden/non-topical, so they are not part of the main category tree and the loop no longer exists. If some people find them useful as maintenance categories, then there's no consensus to delete. ghouston (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And many other 'YYYY in the European Union as well as Month YYYY in the European Union categories.

The category and the whole category tree of "photographs taken in countries that are members of the European Union by date" is unecessary. The following points comming to my mind, see also the illustration table below.

• First the EU is not a country as this category tree wrongly suggests.
• Second if 2008 in the european union is used as a cascade category then all categories 2008 in countryX are overcategorized at the moment because they are as well in 2008 by country and in the cascading European Union subcategory.
• Third, the European Union is a political union. Content categorized to Category:European Union is expected to be related to the topic en:European Union. Just because a photo was created within the European Union does not create such a topic connection. It simply not worth to blow up the history of the European Union topic category with any photgraph that accidentially was created within one of the member states of the European Union.
• Adding the photograph File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 24.JPG to a category like July 2007 in the European Union would be appropriate. Adding File:University of Limerick - Campus2.JPG to that category is not an appropriate topic categorization or an misunderstanding of the European Union as a territorial entity.

The current situation:

Reduced form:

--Martin H. (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support but not for exactly the same reasons.

1. Today, Commons has a two level world-country structure (5000 by country categories, but will probably double within one year) which is based on political divisions.
2. On some categories, 116 overcats seem tolerated for by "continent" categories. Continents are not political but geographical divisions and create problems because many countries span several continents and makes categorisation much more complex (would require at least 40000 additional intermediate categories). They make mainly sense for geographical items that don't fit exactly in the political country scheme, such as rivers, mountain ranges, lakes, languages, maps, history ... (see en:List of countries spanning more than one continent)
3. The European union intermediate structure could only be considered if:
   1. There would exist comparable and well known structures (for example Nort American Union, south Asian union, ...) for the rest of the world, which is not the case
   2. The structure is mature and stable; the EU is still changing for many years to come.

So the European Union has to be a side category, not an intermediate category. --Foroa (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I can not see how this can cause confusion. I created the current category as I wanted to link the European Union nations together which for all other purposes they are (for example see: Category:Members of the European Union). Because as you point out the European Union is not a 'state' per se but rather a federal body that oversees its member states I continued to include member states within the category divided by country.

The North American Union and the South Asian Union are not comparable. The European Union had much further powers and holds teh highest juristriction for its member states. Moreover the European Union is frequently used as a combined measure of member states in statistics etc.

Further to this I can not see that even for someone who wishes to search each member state individually that this can cause any confusion. The category co-exists with existing categories. Deleting it would only go to undermine work carried out by consciencous editors. -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine category Category:Countries of Europe, per your logic this category must not contain Portugal, Spain, France etc. directly but a subcategory with countries of the European Union and only some other countries directly like Andorra, Switzerland, Croatia, etc. So consequently: Almost non of our categories (!!) follows your example. Neither has Category:Rivers of Europe, Category:Buildings in Europe, Category:People of Europe a subcategory specially for countries of the european union. From a categorization viewpoint your approach is simply wrong.

The question is:

Is this correct? No, the European Union is not a teritorial Union.

What is the purpose of Category:European Union, will pepople look for all photographs taken on the territory of the European Union or will they look for media files related to the European Union as an institution? I think the second. Nobody who will look into Category:History of the European Union will have any interest in File:University of Limerick - Campus2.JPG. Thats just unecessary. The category causes confusion, it breaks up the category structure and there are plenty of other tools that rely on this structure. If you want to 'link the european nations together'... well, create a link list, e.g. a navigation bar at the top of the category providing links to the same year in member countries of European Union. That would be appropriate. --Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't break up the structure as the two co-exist. I have set the European Union apart from the other alphabetised nations ergo it does not interfere with them. I also don't think it is for us to guess how people search for different subject. Anyone searching still has the option to search via individual member states.

I don't think that the rivers comparison is pertinent to your point. Rivers flow with little regard for political boundries and so to categorise them by continent is a little more appropriate. The European Union and Europe are very different entities. The European Union does not cover all of Europe and itself extends outside of that continent.

I do not see providing such a search means and grouping nations that fall under a single federal parliament prevents people from searching by other means. I personally make many searches amoungst content in E.U. states but I do not think I have once searched on commons for data outside of the Union. For me it is useful. I am not trying to group them together as one entity I have just provided an umbrella category. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least, we al agree that the world/country categories are forming the main scheme.

I understand the need of Michael, but there are million ways of adding side categories, such as in this case Europe, Schengen, Eurozone, Commonwealth, English speaking areas, Ancient Roman countries, Anglo-Saxons, Germanic peoples, Vikings country, British empire, Dane and Norman conquests, Caucasians, Southern Europe, ... If each person is to start its intermediate or side-categories, where will we end ? --Foroa (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could do so and I wouldn't object to it per-se. It is however very different to have such categorisation over the European Union which is a contemporary organisation that administers over member states in a federal capacity rather than say Ancient Rome which is not current (although perhaps if we were referring to the years in question then it would be so. My overriding point however remains that I do not see how the category in question impairs anybody elses search. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support I agree that they are unnecessary, esp. in light of Foroa's comment. At a minimum, and even if the EU categories remain, the over-categorisation must be eliminated. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J 1982 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)  Support And if we must keep it, no such categories before 1993. It was not only a name change, OK the European parliament existed , but before 1993 it was mostly an international free trade agreement.[reply]

• This discussion seems dead and should probably be closed. The original concern about over-categorisation was apparently because the EU categories had been added to the country-by-year categories. It seems that this has been fixed. Also since the member countries have been added to Category:Members_of_the_European_Union under European Union, then it's not inconsistent if the date categories have the same structure. The rest of the discussion is about whether the EU date categories are useful or not, and it seems that most people think they are not. However I wouldn't be inclined to delete them myself, because it seems that a few people think they are useful (namely Mtaylor848 and presumably the others who have been creating them), and it seems that they are now relatively harmless and easily ignored. Also there's a good chance somebody would just recreate them anyway. ghouston (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as suggested since discussion is dead. ghouston (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this category needs to be removed and changed to Leucanthemum rotundifolium Yevaud PL (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that they do refer to the same plant, although it's not clear which is preferred. Since Leucanthemum waldsteeinii is currently empty, I'll redirect it to Leucanthemum rotundifolium. ghouston (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no source, just a wrong license claim Polarlys (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No licenses possible at category level. --Foroa (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this refers to the files in the category uploaded by Ealmagro. They were initially given as "own work" and {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}, although Ealmagro changed the licence to PD-Art on at least two of them. However the true source information is lacking, so it doesn't seem possible to verify that they are actually in the public domain. You'd also need to know the country of publication, year, and if the photographers are named, their years of death. ghouston (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been referred to AN/UP for action. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for discussion request: As per Category talk:Basque Country, the Definition of Basque Country is a cultural region. Ships preferably are to be categorised bij the country of registration.--Stunteltje (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think also cultural region is of interest, when the cultural differences can be seen in the ships or shipping has an important role in the culture or in the region. But there should as always be a clear definition of what to include. Is the home port the deciding factor? --LPfi (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as the homeport is the place of registration of a ship. Outsiders think that the ship, that is always travelling in a certain area, has her homeport in that aera. Not correct. You can find the difference via the categories "Ships in ... " as subcategory of Category:Ships by location and "Ships of ... " as subcategory of Category:Ships by country. So no problem at all with Category:Sailing ships in Basque Country or, as one wants to express these cultural differences, Category:Basque Country ships as subcategory of Category:Ships by type. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the difference, but e.g. Gustaf Eriksons ships were indeed ships of Åland although they sailed mostly between Australian and British ports, under Finnish flag (neither location nor country would connect them to Åland, but home port "Mariehamn" would). The Basque Country might have a situation that in a similar way justifies the category (I notice the Åland category is red, which makes it more difficult to find illustrations for e.g. sv:Ålands sjöfartshistoria or add a commonscat). --LPfi (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ther is no reason to separate between Åland and Finland, as Åland is an autonomous province of Finland. Here in the Netherlands we have exact the same situation. The province Friesland, with its own official language and double spelled names of the cities and villages, is not mentioned as separate country of registration. Ships registered with Leeuwarden as homeport are ships of the Netherlands, not ships of Friesland. Psssst, they will like the idea, don't waken them up. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be to easier find relevant media. If there is a reason to believe some people are interested especially in ships of the Basque Country or of Åland, then that would be reason enough, unless there is a reason to keep all ships directly in the country categories (which might get quite crowded). --LPfi (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is simple: Ships of ... are registered in a certain county, never by province or area. Ships in ... can be everywhere. No reason at all to confuse people with legally not existing registrations. "Of" stands for posession, so e.g. a Category:ships of Roman Abramovich will be no problem. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category only contains Category:Aita Guria (ship, 2005). I think the significance was that it was constructed in the Basque Country, at Bermeo I believe, so perhaps a construction category could be added instead? It may be excessive since the ship can be found in Category:Museums in Biscay and Category:Port of Bermeo. By the way, there is also a similar category Category:Sailing ships of Galicia (Spain). ghouston (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]