Category:Earthenware objects

I wonder about the difference with Earthenware, most of the files from Earthenware could/should go here? Oursana (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Oursana: how native English-speakers sense it? At the moment the nominated category seems like a logical subcategory in Category:Ceramic objects--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I see similar to Porcelain, Porcelain objects, thank you--Oursana (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Charbonnière

We cannot have a French name for a universal concept. See Category:Charcoal clamps silvuple. E4024 (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: the nominated category is redirected to Category:Charcoal makers. Should be OK solution?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Royal Canal (1st lock) and all others in Category:Royal Canal by lock number

There are 46 locks on the Royal Canal, and it gets quite messy adding the ordinal. Can we agree on a different naming system for these locks, and I'll take on changing them? Suggestions:

• Category:Royal Canal Lock 1
• Category:Royal Canal, Lock 1

NB: I like the way it is linked from one lock to the next, is there a template we can use to do that?

Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, so opened up a can of worms here... what to do with things like Callaghan Bridge which is related to the Category:Royal Canal (13th lock). There may be a few more that have names in addition to the number? (and it looks like that category has a number of different bridges in it... I don't know it well enough to sort it out.) -- Deadstar (msg) 08:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Question Does anyone have a good reference as to how these locks are officially named or designated? I agree that using parenthesis for the lock number is not appropriate, but we likewise should not simply be making up our own naming scheme for these structures. A nice sequential linking is great and we can definitely set it up to match with whatever the correct naming scheme for these is (see Category:Pier 1 (San Francisco) for a series of numbered structures linked by a navbox. Josh (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Joshbaumgartner and Deadstar So I've been looking at these using the Irish National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH), and it looks like these are numbered wrong. The 1st lock is actually at Newcomen Bridge (but isn't listed by the NIAH), they DO start at what they call the 2nd Lock is the one at Binns Bridge which is currently categorised here as Lock 3. I had started making Wikidata items for each of these, as they are listed and thus eligible for Wiki Loves Monuments, but this is very messy at the moment - I had started creating categories from the much later locks with a different form of category name (Category:Lock 46, Royal Canal) so it does need to be sorted. There is a dataset downloadable from the NIAH, but for reasons I haven't been able to get an answer for, it is missing much of the inner city of Dublin, so looking at the blue dots along the canal on the interactive map is more instructive. In short, the category which is currently called the 1st lock on the Royal Canal is actually called the Sea Lock on the map, which is why the numbering seems to kick in at Newcomen. Does that make sense? Smirkybec (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I just checked with the Irish Waterways website as well, which is the body who cares for the canals in Ireland, and they start numbering from the lock at Newcomen Bridge as well which you can see from their interactive map showing the Royal Canal navigation here. So I think it is safe to say that the current categorising is at odds with the numbering convention. Smirkybec (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Smirkybec: Good research! It does seems some are named (e.g. 'Blanchardtown Lock', 'Jackson's Lock', etc.) while others are given ordinals (e.g. '2nd Lock' through '11th Lock'). I don't think we should mess with this by forcing ordinals on the named locks. A custom navbox can be created that has the numbers in order if someone deems it worth the trouble, but the category names should be based on the real nomenclature, with '(Royal Canal)' or ', Royal Canal' appended for dab purposes (i.e. Category:Blanchardtown Lock (Royal Canal)/Category:Blanchardtown Lock, Royal Canal and Category:2nd Lock (Royal Canal)/Category:2nd Lock, Royal Canal). Josh (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: I agree, that forcing numeric names onto the locks that are known by names is not the way to go! As you've seen from the categories I've made, that my preference is for something like Category:2nd Lock, Royal Canal, and I'm happy to rename/move the later categories I made to add the post nominals to those. All of these will have Wikidata infoboxes, so the "alternative" (numerical or variations) names can be included there as well. Delighted to get this sorted - as it seemed like such a Gordian knot on first glance :) Plus, the completionist in me will be very happy when we have a full run of the locks and canals with categories Smirkybec (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Warsaw Frederic Chopin Airport

Per Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Frederic Chopin, the current name should be "Warsaw Frédéric Chopin Airport". However, as the English Wikipedia article is "Warsaw Chopin Airport", I suggest renaming it there. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The official English short form name for the airport, as seen in their logo (see here), is "Warsaw Chopin Airport", which is plenty to be specific, so I would propose that as a more appropriate name versus the full long form name "Warsaw Frédéric Chopin Airport". The long form name should however be a redirect. Josh (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

stale discussion. Solution per enwiki en:Warsaw Chopin Airport (Commons equivalent Category:Warsaw Chopin Airport) Estopedist1 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

That was my suggestion, so I have no objections. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Tourists at Machu Picchu

Duplicate of Category:Tourists in Machu Picchu, keep only one of Category:Tourists in Machu Picchu or Category:Tourists at Machu Picchu ErickAgain 09:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This category should be for the archaeological site. If there are files for the district or pueblo, they should be moved to a separate category which uses the preposition "in" and which uses the other spelling (Machupicchu). --Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

stale discussion. We have Category:Machupicchu pueblo, but enwiki article uses the name en:Aguas Calientes, Peru. Archeological site has the name Category:Machu Picchu, same name in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

category:trophy (architectural)

clarify cat tree with respect to category:trophy of arms (antique)...this looks like an artistic theme, which we usually have a main cat for with subcats based on what sort of art the theme is depicted in (here coins, furniture, and buildings) and in what century/decade the depictions were made. This seems better to me than this odd and artificial distinction that ends up with duplication here and at Wikidata (trophy (Q927580) versus trophy of arms (Q18354663)). --Arlo James Barnes 00:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• BTW should this cat not sound better if it were moved to Category:Trophies (architecture)? --E4024 (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  stale discussion. Just some hints: enwiki en:Trophy (architectural) redirects to "trophy of arms" (Commons equivalent Category:Trophies of arms) Estopedist1 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• The correct and full term is "Trophy of arms", often elaborated as "Antique trophy of arms". Note that trophies of arms are not always "architectural", i.e. part of buildings. They appear on coins, sculptures, furniture, etc., so a generic top-level category is required, which I suggest should be "Category:Trophies of arms". If that gets full enough, then yes by all means let's create sub-categories such as Category:Trophies of arms on coins , Category:Trophies of arms on buildings , Category:Trophies of arms on sculptures , etc and further categorisation into centuries and even by country eventually. I would be happy to do that now, although categorisation by centuries is perhaps premature.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Nature of Lake Saimaa

Category:Lakes is a subcategory of Category:Nature in general and Category:Saimaa is a subcategory of Category:Nature of Finland in particular. Thus "Nature of Lake X" type categories seem to be against the Hierarchic principle defined in the category policy. Apalsola ^{t • c} 10:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I suppose most of the images of Lake Saimaa are indeed about the nature, or at least including nature of the lake and its surroundings prominently enough that some would put it in a nature category, at least as a third or forth category. If we do not want 100k images (Saimaa is a top summer cottage destination in Finland, with some 14,000 islands) directly here, it needs a subcategory tree, more or less mirroring the main Saimaa category tree. –LPfi (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for late answer. I agree with the above that category "Saimaa" vs. "Nature of Saimaa" are very similar and overlapping and in short should not be used. A related matter is that there are tons of images not categorized in Saimaa at all that are showing Saimaa. Similarly in the category there are images that are categorized Saimaa, but the topic is something totally different e.g. a monument and a stretch of water showing behind. IMHO categorizing every image with a strech of Saimaa water in it under Saimaa makes the whole Saimaa category irrelevant because in the end there isn't anything specific to be found in it. It makes me wonder if the purpose of the category is 1) collect all content from Lake Saimaa area in one category 2) compile content that is specific to Saimaa environment?

Someone more experienced could maybe comment on this an give some suggestions, how to tackle this problem. There was a suggestion that we should develop more subcategories to make category Saimaa more user friendly. Maybe that could be the way forward? --Periegetes (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. @Apalsola, LPfi, and Periegetes: redundant and too wide category.--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem in moving the content to (an appropriate subcategory) of Category:Saimaa and deleting this subcategory. –LPfi (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Delete. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 18:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Fawad4real

Purpose of this category is unclear. User who set it up seems to have gone. S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Its a user category and all files in it are properly categorized by topic. Can't see a problem. GeorgHH • talk   12:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Julie Andrews in 2011

Category does not have any image of hers in it... E4024 (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The image is not of her but it is related. There may be only one image, but the category is part of a wider structure that is well-populated. I think it should be kept. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@BMacZero: isn't it misleading? The museum shows Julie's clothes which she weared in 1965? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is a fair point that this particular image may not belong in this category. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Automatic teller machines within a motor vehicle

Today there are many services being given in mobile form (on trucks, buses, vans, trailers). When I was a kid only Migros supermarket in Kadıköy sent an old truck to our neighbourhood and we would by things there; without credit cards, other wireless thingies,,, I do not know how that red bus was operated. Whatever, see Category:Road vehicles by function for some of them that I could bring together. Of course food trucks should also be affiliated in this cat tree and certainly other mobile things (do we already have public showers or saunas on trucks?) that I missed. However, neither the mother cat I used (see above) nor the title of this one satisfy me. Look at it "within a motor vehicle"! Sounds horrible. Fresh ideas? E4024 (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As for collecting such services on motor vehicle, Category:Mobile bank branches is better connecting point, which also includes Category:Automatic teller machines within a motor vehicle. Mobile bank branches usually includes a counter for customers who want to consult bank personnel, face-to-face or on TV system. ATM trucks do only have ATM without such counter, but it could be a sub-category of mobile bank branches. By the way, Category:Automatic teller machines within a motor vehicle is created and named as a sub-category of Category:Automatic teller machines that are installed within a motor vehicle (trucks, buses,...), because they are distinct in the installation and could be interested separately. There is no general term for this kind of installation in my opinion so it should inevitably be named in this descriptive way.--Mzaki (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

stale discussion. It seems that keep per @Mzaki. But maybe @Davey2010 and Andy Dingley: want to comment? Estopedist1 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges by caliber.

	Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges	Move to/Rename as	Category:Firearm cartridges
	Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges	Move to/Rename as	Category:Ammunition cartridges
	This category includes cartridges for all manner of firearms. 'Firearm' as the parent category is far better than a grouping such as 'pistol and rifle'.
	Josh (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Support renaming, but  Oppose naming the category firearm cartridges. Here we have the same problem with the current categoryname: What is a "firearm"? If a .50 BMG cartridge is used in a Barrett M82 it could be categorised in that category. If the same cartridge is used in a machine gun mounted to a place would this still be a firearm? Where should the ammonution with caliber 2 cm and above be sorted in? That would be more machine cannon ammunition. On the other hand 2 cm ammunition can also be used in weapons like the Neopup PAW-20. And what about ammunition for hand held grenade launcher like the XM148, the M79 or the Milkor MGL and tripod fired grenade launchers like the Mk 19, the Mk 47 or the XM307? Is one 45 mm caliber cartridge now considered a firearm cartridge while the same diameter for a different weapon is not? Such fine details will not work on commons and the category will end up in the chaos as it is right now.
The actual problem is that there is more than one thing that is called a cartridge and therefore Category:Cartridges can not be used. I would call the category something like Ammunition cartridges so that all cartridges can be collected there. On the high end that would be eg. ammunition for the 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 (WW II ammunition using a real cartridge) or caseless 120 mm smoothbore ammunition.
At the same time (while recategorising the existing several hundred categories) I want to rethink/retalk Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges because not every cartridge fits in the D x L mm Name scheme. Eg, .223 Remmington would be 5.56 x 44.7 mm Remmington. Nobody would call that cartridge that name and it's awfully close to the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO. Even I hate using the "×" you can not type with your keyboard over the "x" that can be tiped with your keyboard the non-keyboard version seems to be the default on pretty much every Wikipedia so I think we should rather follow that way and have redirect for all name versions with an ordinary x. For sorting the category I would copy the layout of the C.I.P. ammunition table using existing forms. So .223 Remmington would not be sorted at the very end of the list (5 < 223) or together with 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, but with other ammunition starting with "2"
--D-Kuru (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Any comments on my idea? --D-Kuru (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: Your proposal meets the need I was concerned about in getting rid of the ugly conjunction. I think 'firearm' is well enough defined as a chemical propellant gun designed to be portable and useable by an individual, but even so, I have no problem with using 'ammunition cartridge' as you suggest. I see no particular value in arbitrarily splitting cartridges into two groups based on size since they will essentially be sorted by size in a single category. That said, it is currently under Category:Firearms, so if we broaden it from being just firearm cartridges, it needs to be moved up to Category:Guns to reflect this. If we do that, I have no problem with the new name. Josh (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

As for the cartridge names issue, I think perhaps the intent of the CfD wasn't fully clear. First, indeed, the 'keyboard' 'x' was the conclusion so that seems in line with your thoughts as well. Also, it only was intended to apply to metric naming convention, maybe not clearly stated in the CfD, but that would mean .223 Remington would not be changed. As for sorting, I think the inch caliber cartridges are kind of in their own separate section vs. the metric ones (under '.') The format of the sort key for the metric cartridges does need to be fixed so they are rationally ordered. Josh (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: I thought about the best way of doing this. I would do the categorisation like this (9mm Para as example):

• Category Name: 9 × 19mm Parabellum (so 9<SPACE>×<SPACE>19<NO-SPACE>mm<REST-OF-NAME> )
• Redirect to category: 9 x 19mm Parabellum
• Every category gets an item on Wikidata

I would rather go with the non-keyboard "×" because to me it's name (en:Multiplication sign) makes it a good fit and - as said - it seems to be the widespread standard.

Metric vs. imperial: I don't like the current way that there is a bunch of cartridges starting with "." at the start. You have to scroll pretty far to get to eg. 5.56 x 45mm NATO. I would rather collect .223 Remington ammunition under "2" and not under "." It's also possible that we seperate catridges by metric and by imperial size. To be honest I'm not a huge fan of that either.

--D-Kuru (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: As for sub-catgories, I'm a bit confused now, as you have both advocated for 'keyboard x' and 'multiplication ×', so I'm curious as to the change of heart there. Also, eliminating the space before 'mm' is contrary to the correct method to write a dimension: "'value'<space>'unit'" (see here for context). In any case, perhaps we should take this up as a separate discussion. Josh (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: The category with the multiplication-× will be used to collect all the files. The Category with the keyboard-x will use {{Category redirect}} and only exist so that it can be easily found with a search using just your keyboard just like Category:9 x 19 Parabellum. The font is maybe bad to display the difference, but the server will not mistake one for the other.

We can also have a space between the value and the unit. So 9<SPACE>×<SPACE>19<SPACE>mm<REST-OF-NAME> would be fine for me as well. We just have to agree on one name template to not double the work on this project that is pretty large anyway. I would say we go through the categories one by one and the finished categories will be moved to Category:Ammunition cartridges while the unfinished stay in Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges until they are ready. --D-Kuru (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the proposal above to better capture the content of the category. This should address the concerns raised by D-Kuru regarding using the term 'firearm' in this context. Josh (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: I have raised the cartridge naming issue up in a separate CfD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges by caliber so this one can stick to the original topic. Josh (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: From https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:6.5_x_58_R&action=history I gathered that you are done talking? --D-Kuru (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: I'm open to further suggestions, but I thought you were a proponent of 'ammunition cartridges' as the category name, as I changed the proposal to match. Was I mistaken? Josh (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Eiseninstallation Relief-Kreuz (Ernst Jordi 1983)

By default, there is a comma between the sculptor's name and the year of creation. Hence, Category:Eiseninstallation Relief-Kreuz (Ernst Jordi, 1983) would be correct. For reference, see e.g. Category:Statue of William H. Seward (Richard Brooks, 1909), Category:Einheit aus drei gleichen Volumen (Max Bill, 1979) or Category:Rossebändiger (Bernhard Bleeker, 1931). BTW: The other subcategories of Category:Ernst Jordi (Eisenplastiker) need to be renamed accordingly. AmBu (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Salut @AmBu: I didn't know about this default. can you point me to the description page in Commons? - Beside of this, default doesn't' mean policy or rule, right?

When I started uploading my own pictures of public artworks by artist and year more than two years ago, nobody complained or advised me about a missing comma.

Here you can find them:

Public art in the canton of Bern with the subcategories

Public art in Bern (366 Categories)

Public art in Ittigen (2 Categories)

Public art in Ostermundigen (13 Categories) and

Public art in Zollikofen (17 Categories)

my personal contribution is above 95̬% of the total of the images uploaded. All of them without a comma.

In the meantime there are about 400 categories and a couple of thousands of images without a comma. What to do? What do you propose?

My very personal opinion is, that it is better to have an information, even without a comma, than to have no information at all. Many pictures here in Commons are missing information. With or without a comma. But, so what, nobody is perfect, but contributes knowledge, time and media free to use to the world.

Thoughtful regards AnBuKu (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, examples without commaː Category:Plastik Aufstrebend von Herbert Wasenegger 1969, Category:Natursteinplastik Vogelbaum von Joana Steinlechner-Bichler 1963 - In order to be correct (sry, I'm not very much used to formal stuff ː-() and as a consequence of my statement of yesterday I suggest  Keep AnBuKu (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep As a "customer" of pics regarding Berne and environment I have some doubts that there should be a default comma. When I see similtarities to bibliografy we do not use a comma (f.e. Mosimann 2012 or Schniggenfittich 1977). May be, some do or some do not. Not all rulez are unique. --Ghormon (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  stale discussion. There seems to be no consensus, so  keep. I just mention that logically the nominated category should be Category:Eiseninstallation Relief-Kreuz, but currently it is in the line with parent category, so the current solution is acceptable Estopedist1 (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Bulgarian kanafeh

There is no "Bulgarian kanafeh". The only image there is from a Turkish village in Bulgaria, and titled "kunefe". Delete this cat.

(BTW just like the cats for "Turkish culture" and "Culture of Turkey", maybe we should have a "Turkish cuisine" cat other than that for "Cuisine of Turkey". In many places around Turkey, "Turkish cuisine" items are being consumed; ask the Greeks about how many new dishes entered their cuisine after the population exchange...) E4024 (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep This is a subcat of Category:Kanafeh, alongside Category:Kanafeh in Palestine and Category:Künefe in Turkey. The village may be inhabited by people of Turkish ethnicity, but it is in Bulgaria and it is reasonable for this to be categorised on this basis. Like many foods, versions of this are made in Greece and in many Arab countries as well as in Turkey and Bulgaria. You might make a case for this to be included in Category:Ottoman cuisine, but many people are sensitive about their cuisines and this could lead to fruitless disputes. And cultural influences can flow in many directions. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  stale discussion. One-member category (File:Kunefe.jpg) with suspicious name. I suggests to upmerge the sole file and to delete the nominated category Estopedist1 (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)