Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/06

Category:Streets in Schönheide

see also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Streets named after Kyiv

Streets and roads in Schönheide Klaaschwotzer (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In die Category sollten auch in Landkarten mit Namen bezeichnete Fahrstraßen, Feldwege, Wege (befahrbare und nicht befahrbare) eingereiht werden. Beispiel: Fichtigweg und Hammergockel, aber auch Grasesteig (sind in topographischen Landkarten 1:10.000 mit Namen eingetragen, s. auch die Wegebezeichnungen in den Sächsischen Meilenblättern, Link zum Kartenblatt in der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden).--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hallo Klaaschwotzer, ich plädiere dafür den Kategorienamen zu lassen wie er ist. Das ist zum einen Standard und zum anderen funktioniert nur so die Navigationsleiste zu den Straßen in den anderen Gemeinden des Kreises. Davon unbenommen denke ich, dass man die von dir angeregten zusätzlichen Wege und Straßen mit in die Kategorie einfügen kann. Man kann das ja auch schön im Kategorietext erläutern. Grüße, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Klaaschwotzer and Kleeblatt187: I have linked a relevant ongoing discussion on this at the top. It has not been officially closed, but the consensus seems to be that Streets are to be a sub of Roads and that the Roads and streets amalgamation is to go away. Thus, I would recommend one the following:
IF we only have files of roads in Schönheide which are streets, then keep as is.
IF we have files of roads in Schönheide which are streets as well as some which are not streets, then create a new parent category Category:Roads in Schönheide and move all non-street files there, leaving street files in Category:Streets in Schönheide as a sub-cat of roads in Schönheide.
In either case I would not recommend creating a "roads and streets" category here. Josh (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft by construction number

The various descendent categories (for example Category:Boeing 737-700 (msn 38127); Category:Boeing 737-700 (ln 3632), which are about the same, single aircraft), each of which have one member, seem like gross over-categorisation. Such metadata should be dealt with via Wikidata, and {{Wikidata infobox}}, not categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not gross over-categorisation as it is the only suitable categorisation within Commons. Wikidata is not Commons and is an unnecessary intrusion into Commons categorisation. Ardfern (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing and Ardfern: I thought the idea was for the c/n category for an aircraft to be used as a parent when the aircraft has several registrations we have files of it wearing. This C/N category is necessary in these cases to provide a framework for the registration categories, otherwise each registration cat would appear as a unique aircraft even when they are not. The registration category is needed, since the registration can be lifted from the image itself presuming it is visible, so most users can easily categorize an aircraft under its registration without having to do much research. C/N's on the other hand require a bit of research. It's not bad if you are used to finding this info and have the references at hand, but many users who are not familiar with this would be unable to easily sort by aircraft ID if they had to do it directly under the C/N. In the end we end up with this two-layer system of identification, one being the easy-to-use registration categories, and the other a bit more behind-the-curtain C/N categories that provide structure for the registrations linking them to actual airframes they are paired with.
You are completely correct to identify the flaw in that we end up with a lot of C/N cats with only one registration cat under them. It is not overcat per se, but it is redundant to say the least. At first glance I would say we could do away with the C/N categories in these cases, such as you raised above, but there are a couple of problems:
  1. In a lot of cases, the airframe does have multiple registrations, just at the moment we only have files for one. However, the header text lists the various registrations, so a search can help a user find the correct C/N category to put a new registration category in when that second registration has files uploaded. If we delete the C/N category, then we will lose this utility and make it more likely for the two registrations to remain unlinked despite actually being for the same airframe.
  2. As the C/N category is for the airframe, it is the better place to add the history of the aircraft.
  3. As both C/N and registration categories are well in place, I think that some editors are in the habit of creating both for any given pair, even if there is only one registration under the c/n.
Of course, I am not sure deleting the registration category is good either, since this is the easiest and most intuitive to use for users who are not fully immersed in the airframe tracking world.
That said, I 100% agree that tracking airframe histories and registration information is much better handled by a structured database like Wikidata. However, that requires implementation which isn't present, so I don't think we can just undo the work done on the Commons side with a promise of Wikidata saving the day without making sure that the information is already in place on Wikidata, and that the implementation of that data on Commons meets the needs of Commons.
We are certainly not there yet, so what do you propose to resolve this situation? Josh (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Can't understand how adding the unique identifiers (c/n) of aircraft in Commons is over categorisation Ardfern (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I have to say I'm not clear on the value of Wikidata re aircraft, eg if we enter all c/n data (eg on Boeing 737-700) on Wikidata only, how would you get a list of Boeing 737-700s by c/n, or a list of Boeing aircraft by c/n, or a list of Boeing 737 Next Generation aircraft by c/n. As far as I can see you couldn't, so what value is it in Commons, where we can currently see all such c/n lists due to categorisation Ardfern (talk)
@Ardfern: I think we are in agreement on most of what you say.
  1. Adding unique identifier categories is not overcategorization, a file would only be overcat if it was found both at the parent c/n category and in one of the reg sub-cats. I don't think that is a real issue, as the solution is just to remove the offending categorization, so I'm not worried about overcat with these categories.
  2. Wikidata may be valuable in the future. As I said, it is not there at present, nor is it likely to be there in the immenent future. That means our current solution cannot be 'leave it to Wikidata'. That said, it could be immensely useful in the future. For example, you ask about 737-700 by c/n. Wikidata has a Q for the 737-700 model, and could have Q's for each c/n of a 737-700. If those c/n Q's have a statement saying 'instance of: 737-700', and a statement linking the c/n to the Commons c/n category, then the contents of '737-700 by c/n' can be automatically populated using this data. Again, this does not exist now, and it may never exist, so while it is potentially useful, it is not a solution we can use for the current arrangement. I'm all for developing WD in this direction, but we need to deal with the now. Right now, categorizing c/n's under 'ac by c/n' and reg's under 'ac by reg' works well enough. It is incredibly labor-intensive to maintain, but it is what we have. I would not support dismantling either of those pillars while another solution is just a future pie in the sky.
  3. One thing we could do now, except for the fact that it is currently opposed by category policy, is to permit categorization of category redirects. If this were permitted, then we would not need one cat for the c/n and one for the reg just to have it available in the c/n and reg indices. I would support at minimum an exemption to this policy specifically for these kinds of situation where we maintain multiple redundant categories just so we can see them as subs of different index categories.
Josh (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I have inquired on COM:VP for more info regarding the prohibition on categorizing redirects. Josh (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, it seems we should be able to categorize redirects in situations such as this. To that end, for cases where for a specific c/n we only currently have media depicting a single registration on that c/n, I recommend that we redirect the c/n category to registration category, but that the redirect remain categorized in the c/n index. That way it still shows up in C/N lists but we don't have to maintain redundant categories. Josh (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Clock emoji

Child categroies shouild use the format "Time 04:30 emoji", to match Category:Time 04:30 etc; not least for the benfit of correct sorting Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support using standard time format, per Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Looking deeper into this one, it seems that the categories under Category:Clock emoji all are 1:1 vertically redundant to their child unicode categories. Thus I would just change them to redirects to the unicode categories which hold the actual files. Josh (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree "U+1F55F" is a more descriptive and intuitive title than "Clock face four-thirty emoji" (a naming format, I note, that is aligned with the character names in the Unicode standard), and I'm not sure why these were created in the first place, and that not only multiple years after the creation of the older ones, but also after these were categorised in the appropriate Category:Unicode 1F300-1F5FF Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs category by Tuvalkin (Special:PageHistory/Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji, Special:PageHistory/Category:U+1F55F). I also note that the unicode categories only hold the actual files since the commenter recategorised them (e.g. Special:PageHistory/File:Emojione BW 1F55F.svg). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4: That's fair enough, I don't think unicode is really a great title either. I actually prefer the more human name than the machine one for a category name. So what about redirecting, for example, Category:U+1F55F to Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji? I merely addressed the overcat issue (some files were duplicated in parent and child categories). The real issue is that we have two categories for exactly the same thing. We should go forward with one category, determine what the appropriate name for it would be, and other names become a redirect to the one category. I would be fine with upmerging the unicode cats into the named cats for a start. What do you think. Josh (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
(@Joshbaumgartner, 1234qwer1234qwer4, and Pigsonthewing: Sorry for neglecting to answer till now.)
Yes, I agree with all the points made above: quoting an edit summary I used a while back, «U-0001F77F is exactly the same thing as Orcus symbols, as much as U+0041 is the same as the letter A — for which we don’t have a separate category (and shouldn’t have)».
In this spirit, I would even say that both Category:U+1F55F and Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji should be renamed / redirected / collapsed into something like Category:Clockfaces at 04:30 or, even better, Category:Timepiece displays at 04:30 (to allow both digital and dial representations), itself to be a subcat of Category:Time 04:30, where non-imagery files and incidental depictions would remain (all this times 720 = 12×60, potentially double).
I see no advantage in having a category for specific Unicode points as such (let alone presenting them as “emoji”!) separate from a category for the same entity in generic circumstances — example in case: File:U+33C8.png should be in the same category as, say, File:Yanmar SV16 (4).jpg (or in a suitably dissiminated subcat, when warranted).
(While searching for examples, I stumbled across Category:U+2116 as a subcat of Category:Numero sign, which is one more case of the same, showing this is an issue wider than just clockface emojis.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
That said, if any user really needs categories named Category:U+0000 to Category:U+FFFF and beyond, well, I’m not against them, just keep them as redirects to the real thing. (I suspect others will object to this kind of massive creation of cat redirects, though, especially since there’s a policy against categorizing redirects, I think, and that’s what these standartized cat names seem to be sought for.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Right now Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji is categorised into Category:Unicode 1F300-1F5FF Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs, and I'm not sure this would still be appropriate for a category like *Category:Clockfaces at 04:30. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I am sure it would — just the same way this photo is properly categorized under Category:B: The semantics of Unicode character U-0001F55F is indeed «clockfaces at 04:30», much the same way the semantics of Unicode character U+0042 is «the letter "B"». Commons categories are meant to curate disparate media files and are expected to cover a wide gamut of fomality in representation. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I think there is a distinction to be made for clearly pictographic characters. The letter B is by itself a grapheme, whereas something like a clock face, a house or an elephant is not to be equated with the respective pictograph. See also the Category:Pictograms by subject category tree. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I agree to some extent: I’m sure that there’s little to gain by subsuming both Category:U+1F3D6‎ and Category:U+26F1‎‎ to their semantic parent Category:Beach umbrellas just to match why we don’t need a Category:U+0041‎‎ within Category:A‎, however I would draw the distinction line between pictographic and semantic in such a way that Category:Clockfaces at 04:30 is still an acceptable synonym for Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 Question @1234qwer1234qwer4 and Tuvalkin: Perhaps answered above, but to be clear, is "Clock face four-thirty emoji" an officially recognized name for U+1F55F (beyond Commons)? If so, then we really should keep it as it is, not try and convert it to our own format. Can you confirm this, and (bonus point), can you put the citation on record?
I've been looking into the question of categorizing redirects, and I don't think there is really a problem with making Category:U+1F55F a redirect to Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji (or Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji if we change it), and categorizing the redirect under Category:Unicode 1F300-1F5FF Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs and Category:Emoji by Unicode identifier. We don't need to maintain two categories for the same thing. Josh (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
These are exactly the names provided by Unicode. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The Unicode name is "CLOCK FACE FOUR-THIRTY" (no "emoji" in the name, thanks to St. Michael Everson!); but bear in mind that, for instance, while the Unicode name for "︗" is "PRESENTATION FORM FOR VERTICAL LEFT WHITE LENTICULAR BRACKET", the Unicode name for its counterpart "︘" is "PRESENTATION FORM FOR VERTICAL RIGHT WHITE LENTICULAR BRAKCET": Unicode names are immutable, typos and all, but we can do better, if needed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
That example is a bit offtopic, especially since it is a matter of spelling and has also been "fixed" in the ways possible, i. e. as a formal alias and as an erratum. The "emoji" part in the category name was supposed to be specifically for the distinction between the concept and the pictogram for it as discussed above, though I wouldn't object against replacing it by "(emoji)", "(character)", or the like. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I see what you mean and I don’t object in what concerns the nature of this discussion — just pointing out that conforming to an exact Unicode is not a good idea per se, as opposed to considering the Unicode name as a suitable “inspiration” when deciding on a Commons cat name. ("Bracket" is an epic typo, but my fav Unicode name blunder has to be the one about "ƣ".)
Anyway, we should get on with this: There’s lot of "emoji" and "U+" catnames to get rid of: I just noticed there’s a handful of them under Category:Unicode 0000-007F Basic Latin — the exact block I have been using for absurd examples of what we should not have and obviously don’t… and yet we do.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
But please, let’s not have the numbers spelled out in words, but rather indicated in digits, to make default sorting minimally usable. While I can accept Category:Clockface 04:30 character or Category:Clock face 04:30 pictogram or even Category:Clock face 04:30 emoji (holding my nose — these are not emoticons in anyway), something spelled out, such as Category:Clockface at four thirty, would be even worse a mess than it is now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Theater organs (flat list)

This seems entirely wrong to me. Flat-list categories normally contain only categories. This one has no subcategories, and is simply a bunch of pictures that might belong somewhere under Category:Theater organs. Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Jmabel: Then, what name is appropriate for the category containing all media under the specific category hierarchies (i.e. Category:Theater organs and its sub-categories, sub-sub-categories, etc) ? It is necesarry to find non-categorized media not included under these hierarchies... Thanks, --Clusternote (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
This kind of thing has been discussed before (sorry, I am not sure where), but as I recall it is the kind of idea that sounds good in a single instance but kind of breaks down when you try and see how it would work if we did it across Commons categories.
The issues raised by Clusternote are real, and we do not have a real good answer for them. This a known consequence of implementing the COM:OVERCAT rule. It appears for example that we sub-cat theater organs by country and by manufacturer. All well and good. A new user uploads a file of a Wurlitzer theater organ in a theater in Germany to Category:Theater organs. Still fine. Now another user recognizes it is in Germany and puts it in Category:Theater organs in Germany and it is removed from Category:Theater organs at this point (or else it would be an overcat violation!) The problem is now that if a user looks for a picture of a Wurlitzer theater organ, they will not find that fine image either in Category:Theater organs, or in Category:Wurlitzer theatre organs. Thus the idea of a category to contain ALL theater organ files, regardless of their sub-categorization, is appealing.
However, the devil is in the details, and when trying to actually apply this in reality there are some problems that crop up:
  1. How is the content determined? Simply grabbing all files from all sub-trees of the main cat doesn't work. Theater organs has sub-cats such as Robert Hope-Jones, who is a person, not a theater organ. If there were a picture of their face there (perfectly in order to have), it probably isn't what one wants to see in this flat list (gallery?). This is solvable to a degree with some arbitrary rules, but as soon as you start editorializing the content, it isn't really 'flat' anymore is it?
  2. What levels are these flat galleries (more than lists, really) allowed at? Should all categories have them?
  3. If a theater organ file is listed here, should it also be listed on the flat galleries for Concert organs, Organs (music), Keyboard instruments, Wind instruments, Musical instruments, Instruments, Devices, Equipment, Objects, and Phenomena? Any theater organ is also all of these things too. This list is just a quick run up the category tree and I didn't go up every tributary so there would be more to add. I do not think we really want to add every image to all of these categories, do we?
  4. How are they maintained? The existance of a flat gallery does not ensure that all theater organ images can be found in one place, just those that are collected there at any given time. As new images are uploaded to the main cat, there is no way to ensure they get copied to the flat cat as well as be sorted normally into sub-cats.
There are other hurdles, but suffice to say in earlier discussions, we reached the conclusion that while they seemed like a good idea, they really were not workable at the scale of Commons categorization. The topic at the time was aircraft, but the issues are the same for all topics. Galleries are no help as they are even more stale than any category would be, and ultimately limited in what can be reasonably shown there. I think in reality, if you want to see all images recursively through a number of sub-category levels, you will need to rely on a third-party tool for it. There are a couple of search tools that offer exactly this kind of utility, but they won't limit their search to actual images of theater organs, they will just grab all images in X sub-levels of categorization.
So I guess, while I sympathize with the issue, this attempt is not a good solution for Commons categories, even if in isolation it might meet a particular user's desires for this particular topic. Josh (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I'll reply details later, but a few points quickly:
(1) Smallness and ease of maintenance of this category: The number of files under the Theater organs categories is relatively small, about less than 300 500 files at present (including ~ by country categories), and according to my past experiences, this category may not so quickly grow up in the future. On this small scale categories, I believe that the maintenance works for it (such as detecting/adding unregistered files, and improving categories) is not so hard and it can be regularly done every few years without pain.
(2) If the target category was large, your advice may be true:  I have been maintaining larger categories for about 10 years, such as the whole Category:musical instruments, especially the hierarchies of Category:keyboard instruments, Category:Electronic instruments, Category:Guitars, etc. On those relatively large categories, I also think that it is unrealistic to register all files for maintenance.
(3) Past achievements of this method: I am proud to say that I have successfully used this method to organize files on several categories such as Category:The Beatles Story, Category:Musical Instrument Museum (Phoenix), and Category:Hard Rock Cafe (they have huge amount of music memorabilia around the world).
Regarding the feasibility of continuous maintenance, although it is slightly different field and method, Category:Akihabara by year is succeeded to manage all en:Akihabara-related media by year to facilitate the detection of possibly unregistered files, and has been in operation for several years.
Therefore, I believe that this method is useful on small scale category, Category:Theater organs. best, --Clusternote (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: In my eyes, your advice seems stacked by hard assumptions.
In my proposal, the purposes of "flat list" working categories can be explained by following three tasks:
Purpose 1. It provides the ease of find of the new uncategorized files, using the keyword search -- On this purpose, the "flat list" working category provides the list of already categorized files.
Purpose 2. It provides the place for observing the categorized files (as flat list), comparing it with past observation, and discovering unfamiliar or potentially problematic files, to take the action for improvement.
Purpose 3. Additionally, it also provides the place to find the new criteria for potential sub-categorization (for example, categorization by color), examine the new idea, and finally create that new sub-category.
The "flat list" working category in my proposal is just a maintenance work place with a hidden attribute, so it needs not any additional requirements other than the maintenance. We don't need the consistency of a public gallery for generic users, nor the grand scheme for mandating the flat list for all categories on Wikimedia Commons.
Then, try to response to each itemized advice.
Answer 1 & 3: It is merely the hidden working category for maintenance, and not intended for the public gallery. Thus, limitation of sub-category depth nor the exclude role for trivial files are not needed, specifically on the :Category:Theater organs. The portraits of theater organ inventors, or the trivial parts of theater organs, doesn't disturb the maintenance work as far as assuming the scrutiny of individual files.
Answer 2: It is merely the working place for maintenance by individual needs, and not intend for mandating for every categories on Wikimedia Commons. I haven't talk about such excessive theme.
Answer 4 & 1: The needs of maintenance of "flat list" working category, is only required before the maintenance of main category (Theater organs). It is relatively light task, especially on this small scale category (less than 500 files). If none want to maintain this category, probably I will update it irregularly based on my needs. On the other hand, regularly task automation (cron task on UNIX) using some kind of scripting language might be not suitable for current situation, in my opinion.
--Clusternote (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


It might be potentially useful in this case, but it is clearly against policy (COM:OVERCAT). If you want to do something useful in this respect, make a gallery page that shows those pictures of organs that are actually likely to be useful/interesting. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Joshbaumgartner: I don't understand why it is COM:OVERCAT. For example, following situation is COM:OVERCAT ?
  • main category: (containing no file)
    • sub-category by country
      • sub-category of the United States: (containing: File:A.jpg)
    • sub-category by builder
      • sub-category by Wurlitzer: (containing: File:A.jpg)
    • flat list sub-category: (containing: File:A.jpg)
--Clusternote (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
P.S. Anyway, if the continuous existence or the maintenance of "flat list" working category is the issue, then we may be able to implement the equivalent feature by the introduction of new mandatary categories (for example, Category:Theater organs by action where the action is one of {mechanical | pneumatic | electric | electronic | unknown}). --Clusternote (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
PS2: My purpose of "flat list" working category is not for the public gallery, but for the working place for maintaining the structure of main categories. If we created it temporarily, worked on it, then removed it immediately, probably it must be valid, in my thought. --Clusternote (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel and Clusternote: Strictly speaking, COM:OVERCAT is essentially double-catting a page under both parent and child categories, and I was under the impression that files moved to the 'flat' category would not be left in the main category (seems to be what is illustrated above). I do think that attempting to comply with COM:OVERCAT is part of the justification for a 'flat' category to hold 'all' images of a given topic. However, it may fall under what some commonly use 'over-categorization' to refer to and that is having any given page listed in too many categories especially in multiple tangental or redundant ones. Josh (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Clusternote: I wasn't assuming that you were trying to roll this category out Commons-wide or anything, but I was just trying to bring forward some of the questions and issues raised during earlier discussions about categories like this one. It seems that you are looking at this as more of a maintenance category, if I am not mistaken, and you are right that such categories are handled differently than standard topical categories. A few comments/questions to get your take on:
  1. As a maintenance category, what would then be the difference as opposed to say the maintenance categories in the Category:Media needing categories tree. Note maintenance category names are not nearly as well managed as topical categories, so do not let the category names mislead you as to their actual purpose. In particular 'unidentified x' categories are probably poorly named, but serve the purpose of collecting files on X topic that need to be further sorted.
  2. I am not sure if you really see this a temporary working category or a permanent feature of the topic structure. At one point you mention it being a sort of repository for sorted images (purpose 2), not just a place for files that need work. Perhaps you can help clarify whether these are sticky or not.
  3. When you say "ease of find of the new uncategorized files, using the keyword search", for which users do you refer. Are you speaking about general browsing users or those active editors on the particular topic? I'm also not sure how the keyword search is affected one way or the other, but there may be search techniques that it would be better for. Perhaps a little on how you see the interaction between the 'flat' category and the search function would clarify.
I do kind of like the idea of a maintenance category that can be specific to a topic as a sort of work space for active maintenance efforts. It would not necessarily be a permanent feature (though some topics might warrant this) and would only be kept so long as their are active editors working on that topic. I was thinking maybe a hatnote on the category that explains that it is a workspace for the topic, a brief description, and a list of editors who are active on that topic. Those editors would be point of contact for anyone contributing, and if the project is abandoned then it can be done away with, but only if none of the editors listed were responsive. I don't know, just a thought, and it might not apply to what you are wanting to do here.
We also have user categories, but those are more personal and discourage others who might want to help from getting involved in their contents. Also, we discourage linking between user and topic categories, so that can make some tasks a little harder to use standard tools and gadgets on.
Don't get me wrong, I like what you are doing, and I think we should find a way to support it. I also want to avoid users coming across this kind of special category and wonder what the heck it is and why it isn't like other flat lists they might be familiar with. Josh (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Airbus Helicopters Puma family

see related discussion at: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
Category:Airbus Helicopters Puma familyMove to/Rename asCategory:Puma (helicopter family)
similar to categories such as Category:Concorde, Category:F-15 Eagle and Category:F-16 Fighting Falcon this was made by many manufacturers over the years, including Sud Aviation (original development), Aerospatiale (initial primary manufacturer, manufacturer of majority of examples, and only maker of most variants), Westland (joint manufacturer for some orders), Eurocopter (succeeded Aerospatiale), and Airbus Helicopters (current manufacturer). Naming with only one of these is inaccurate and misleading. See linked discussion above for discussion of options for dealing with these kinds of aircraft categories. Normal practice is to include the manufacturer when there is one clear one but not for those where there a more than one significant manufacturer, especially when there is a widely recognized name like Puma, Concorde, F-15 Eagle, etc. that is sufficient. The new name is also consistent with most of its contents (Universality Principle).
Josh (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Updated proposal to correctly parenthesize dab. Josh (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:ÖBB logos (“ပ́ʙʙ”)

Diese Kategorie ist völlig unnötig, da es bereits Category:ÖBB logos gibt, eine Kategorie, die auch korrekt im Kategorienbaum für das Unternehmen (Category:Österreichische Bundesbahnen) steht. Die neuere Katgeorie ÖBB logos (“ပ́ʙʙ”) ist wegen Nutzung exotischer Sonderzeichen nicht auffindbar, außerdem nicht vernünftg in andere Kategorien eingebunden (zB von Category:Österreichische Bundesbahnen nicht zu finden). Hier liegt der Fokus nur auf der Unterstellung, dass falsch verwendete Akzente verwendet worden wären. Daher schlage ich die Löschung der Kategorie vor.--Taste1at (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Keep -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This category is meant to offer specific categorization to the current ÖBB lettermark "" which has speficic typographic characteristics, as mentioned in the o.p., and which in turn allow to correlate this category with such others under those parent categories — e.g. Category:Diacritics styled by cutting in the letterform. If the current category name with “unusual characters” is found unsuitable, then renaming it could be discussed: Maybe Category:ÖBB logo (1998)?
This category is furthermore a step in the right direction of subcategorizing ÖBB logos as needed. Concerning the logo image contents, difference should be made between what is merely a logo used by the company, such as this one, and what is the company’s identificative lettermark — be it in its current incarnation (covered by the category now in discussion), as well as in any previous version, such as in this one.
(In this regard, please consider Category:Pflatsch, which is about the 1974-1998/2004 logo of the same entity and yet not categorized under Category:ÖBB logos — suggesting that there are indeed errors in the categorization of the logos of ÖBB in Commons, but not as claimed in the o.p.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 Comment: Previously to even starting this dicussion, Taste1at (talk · contribs) recategorized all its contents, in a a gesture of bad faith that is conducent to obfuscate any meaningful discussion. I recomend swift administrative action to prevent further vandalism. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This affected 18 files. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
"subcategorizing ÖBB logos as needed" - No, this is only the case as of now, so my original post was perfectly accurate. I did not vandalize anything, it was vandalism to un-categorize the logos from the original category related to the company in the first place. No need for administrative action. Category:ÖBB logo (1998) would be possible, but I do not see the point for only a handful of files.Taste1at (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Category:ÖBB logos (“ပ́ʙʙ”) was created by Tuvalkin for the new (since 1998) logos such that it could be added to a bunch of catgeories in Tuválkin's own category tree. Just some extra comment its use here: the categories "Unorthographic use of diacritics" and "Diaeresis shaped as acute accent mark" are mutually exclusive: Either there is a diaeresis, which is shaped like a acute or there is another, then possibly unorthographic, diacritic. Here, actually, none of the two categories is correct, since the abbreviation starts with an Ö, which is an Umlaut, not a Diaeresis, as pointed out correctly in the English Wikipedia. Correct would be "Umlaut shaped as acute accent mark". In no case, this should be part of the (super-category) Category:Spelling errors involving diacritics, since it is not an error, but artistic freedom. And for sure, the logo does not use the Myanmar alphabet, particularly not its Letter Pa (U+1015) “ပ”, which was used in the name of the category. So, renaming would be the minimum requirement.--Taste1at (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Some comments:
  • There are no «catgeories in Tuválkin's own category tree» — there are only Common’s categories. I don’t play COM:OWN and you’re on your 2nd step on a ladder away from COM:AGF. (And, after all, if these were just my categories, why would do you even care?)
  • Obviously the word "diaeresis" is meant here as the diacritical mark shaped as two dots, irrespective of its orthographic usage in any given language.
  • Denoting Umlaut by means of an acute accent mark is certainly unorthographic in German — an artistic freedom, as in other thusly designed logos your uncategorization has now isolated the ÖBB logo from. Grouping that kind of logo design with unintentional mistakes under the same category is productive and useful; if needed this nexus could be refined, but never removed.
  • Obviously "ပ" here is a standing for open top Latin "ɔ" which would not work well in this cat name — nor visually, nor formally: One more reason to rename this Category:ÖBB logo (1998); we agree on that.
  • Yes, I had forgotten till after this discussion started to propertly categorize this category under Category:ÖBB logos. Now, to do the same with Category:Pflatsch…
  • Categories are created as needed, and the required minimum number of elements is 1 (either files or subcats). What matters most is a category’s own categorization, and categorizing the parent cat Category:ÖBB logos itself with things like Category:OBB letter combinations would be a mistake, as several ÖBB logos do not bear the letters "ÖBB", as mentioned, neither in this specific lettermark, itself categorization-worthy, nor otherwise.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
You should have read my comment much more carefully: Specifically, I did not write that the use of an accent would not be “unorthographic” because of artistic freedom. I wrote that it was not an “error” because of artistic freedom. In several dictionaries , error is defined as a mistake, as opposed to the conscious decision to act differently.--Taste1at (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Taste1at and Tuvalkin: I have restored the files to this category. I thought it was an empty cat when I first looked at it, before realizing I was being misled. With the files back, I can actually see what is going on here. Once we conclude, the files can be moved or retained as appropriate, no need to touch them until then. Now as the substance of the discussion:
  1. It sounds like the basic problem of this category being severed from the parent ÖBB logos has been solved by adding that omitted category.
  2. It is true that the special characters are a problem for accessibility, but it sounds like Category:ÖBB logo (1998) is acceptable, which solves this issue.
  3. What seems an unnecessary split to some is often a key delineation for others, so I don't find the necessity argument particularly compelling.
@Taste1at: If the first two items are solved, is there any other reason (beyond not seeing the utility in it) for seeking deletion at this point?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshbaumgartner (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21. Jun. 2023‎ (UTC)
I am fine with keeping and renaming this category.
Following Tuválkin's suggestion I have added Category:Pflatsch to Category:ÖBB logos.
My criticism on other issues, like the misuse of the word diaeresis for an umlaut, are still valid, but not part of this discussion here.--Taste1at (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Category contents moved to new Category:ÖBB logo (1998); the "move category" command seems to be unavailable.
My criticism on other issues, such as the vandalism perpetrated by Taste1at, is still valid, but not part of this discussion here.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Novak Đoković

Move to Category:Novak Djokovic per Commons:Categories § Category names: Category names should generally be in English. Here the non-English name is not more commonly used in English (for example, "Đoković" appears in just two of the hundreds of English-language source titles cited on his enwiki page, both of them published in the Balkans). This category was created back in 2007 and discussed by just a handful of users in 2013-2016, but there was no consensus (2–1 for moving; the 1 closed the discussion). Pinging the active users from back then, @Kacir and Achim55. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

List of subcategories Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
*Category:Novak Đoković at the 2009 US Open
Categories are useful to find images. Whether A redirects to B or vice versa B to A makes no difference. I personally prefer the original names in the birth cert/original language. But I don't care which way is chosen. --Achim55 (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 Agree – per nomination. Djoković is the expected form of the surname. IMO no one but Serbs will search for a name like Đjoković. BTW, Djere was moved on en wiki in April 2023. Kacir (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Category:Naomi Ōsaka and Category:Martina Navrátilová are related categories with nonstandard (for English) diacritics. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Players of North Carolina Tar Heels women's soccer

Request move to Category:North Carolina Tar Heels women's soccer players for consistency with other members of Category:College women's soccer players. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support Per nom, plus the wording of the current cat is awkward. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Though I should add that the this move would undo the move made by Blackcat in in 2016 Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 Comment There are a couple of other similar ones in there:
  1. Category:Players of South Carolina Gamecocks women's soccer --> Category:South Carolina Gamecocks women's soccer players
  2. Category:Women's association football players of the Nebraska Cornhuskers --> Category:Nebraska Cornhuskers women's soccer players
 Support rename to "Team Name women's soccer players" for all contents of Category:College women's soccer players for now. Josh (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 Comment The whole of Category:College women's soccer players and its subs may require rename to Category:NCAA women's association football players to match parent Category:NCAA association football players at somepoint, but the rename above shouldn't need to wait on that. Josh (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose. The sport is "association football", not soccer, and the scheme is "Players of XXXXXX", which is the one widely used on commons. Is the whole category: "Category:College women's soccer players" which has no reason to exist; the main category is "Women's association football players by club in the United States" and that's enough, why the univeristy soccer should have a separate name scheme? -- Blackcat —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Blackcat: And on the other hand, the Category:College athletes in the United States tree (complementing Category:College sports teams in the United States) is surely category-worthy, and its subcategories should be formatted consistently, from Category:Alabama Crimson Tide football players to Category:UCLA Bruins basketball players. This format is also the more idiomatic in American English – maybe hold off from doing related page moves during the discussion. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
What does "more idiomatic in American English" mean? I thought Commons were written in English, not in the English spoken overseas. We cannot write "football" and let the reader guess which football code we are talking about, don't you agree? -- Blackcat 20:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Oops, didn't mean to touch the "football" vs. "soccer" debate! Only said American because I noticed, when looking at related categories, that many US ones use the "X players" format (e.g., Category:National Basketball Association players by club) which I find more natural-sounding (more idiomatic) than "Players of X" (e.g., Category:Basketball players by team in Italy). (There is also the ubiquitous issue, with "Players of X" cats, of a missing "the" – e.g., Category:Players of Portugal women's national association football team instead of Category:Players of the Portugal women's national association football team or Category:Players of North Carolina Courage instead of Category:Players of the North Carolina Courage.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Linha do Elétrico de Sintra

Como é que esta categoria se conjuga com Category:Trams in Sintra e Category:Tram transport infrastructure in Sintra? Mete-se aqui tudo? Não entendo. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Parece-me que a "Linha do Elétrico de Sintra" é uma parte de "Trams in Sintra" e de "Tram transport infrastructure in Sintra", que são categorias mais genéricas. Pode haver mais "Trams in Sintra" e mais "Tram transport infrastructure in Sintra", que desconheço, mas pode haver mais. Daí, havendo essa linha específica, assim designada no SIPA e na outra bd da DGPC, estando classificada como Monumento de Interesse Municipal, pareceu-me bem criá-la como sub-categoria de "Tram transport infrastructure in Sintra". GualdimG (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Realmente há um elétrico da Carris q esteve uns anos a servir de anexo numa instalação pré-escolar no Cacém, e q portanto, sendo em Sintra, nada tem a ver com a C.S.A. Casos menos claros serão os outros ex-CCFL (e um ex-SMTUC, pelo menos) que estão ou estiveram nas cocheiras da C.S.A.: Uns só de passagem, mais ou menos prolongada, outros que acabaram por ser adaptados para integrar a frota da C.S.A.
Mesmo assim não me agrada este nome de categoria. O facto de ser a designação adotada para a classificação monumental não me convence, também: Há nomes no SIPA que, por muito oficiais que sejam, são simplemente absurdos (ex.) — não ficaria melhor a designação "Companhia Sintra-Atlântico"?, que desde a década de 1940 não se refere a uma empresa, sendo apenas uma “marca” usada pelo proprietário (atualmente, a C.M.S).
O que é realmente esta categoria, ao refletir o nome da classificação como MIM? O que entra nesta categoria, já que, como bem dito acima, as outras categorias são mais genéricas? Umas fotos avulsas como está agora? Todas ao molho? Nenhuma foto? Apenas subcats que são 100% C.S.A. como esta ou esta? (Já lá está esta, afinal…) E a sua própria categorização? Talvez mover para aqui qs tudo o q está em Category:Tram transport in Sintra?
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Concordo que existem nomes oficiais menos adequados (menos no SIPA do que na outra base de dados da DGPC), mas não neste caso. Parece-me "Linha do Elétrico de Sintra" perfeitamente adequada para o "assunto". O facto de ser menos genérica do que as outras duas não é óbice à sua manutenção. Talvez seja antes de equacionar a manutenção das duas mais genéricas em conjunto. GualdimG (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Sporting shops

Along with Category:Sporting goods retailers by sport, Category:Sports equipment retail companies and Category:Sporting shops by country. Josh (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Original post from COM:VP: "Sporting goods"

In terms of shops, I think we have a bit of a conflation in the hierarchy between at least two distinct types of shops. As you go up and down the hierarchy, "sports shops" "sporting shops", and "sporting goods shops" appear in category names. In the U.S., and especially before 1970 or so, "sporting goods" mostly means/meant hunting and fishing, maybe camping, not a lot that would be called "sports" nowadays (though they did usually carry some baseball gloves, etc.). On the whole the were more like what is now called an "outdoor equipment" shop, a term we don't seem at all to have in our categories.

This came up because I needed to categorize File:Seattle - Warshal's Sporting Goods, circa 1970s (52899606237).jpg. I ended up using Category:Sporting shops in the United States, but it puts it in a category with things like an Adidas shop, or the team store of a minor league baseball team.

Anyone interested in sorting this out? I could start a CfD, but a lot of categories are potentially affected, and I have no particular expertise or focus in the area.

Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I took a look and Jmabel (talk · contribs) is right, this section needs help. There are a lot of categories affected, and so it bears discussion. The current path looks like this:

A few things came up when looking into it:

  1. Category:Shops is the intersection of Category:Retail buildings and Category:Retail companies, indicating that 'shop' on Commons is the physical location of a retail company's operation (i.e. brick-and-mortar store).
  2. Category:Sports equipment is the Commons topic for all goods associated with sports. Category:Sporting goods doesn't exist, and presumably if it did, it should be a redirect to Category:Sports equipment.
  3. Placing Category:Sporting shops under Category:Sporting goods retailers by sport makes little sense, as I'm not sure how "sporting" is a sport (thought maybe "shops" could be?).
  4. Several categories use "retailers" instead of "shops", such as Category:Golf retailers and the like.

Thus I would start with the following changes:

  1. Keep Category:Sports equipment retail companies at the top as is for all companies involved in selling sports equipment/sporting goods.
  2. Rename Category:Sporting shops to Category:Sports equipment shops . This obeys the Hierarchic Principle by being consistent with parent topics Sports equipment and Shops. Move this category out of Category:Sporting goods retailers by sport and place directly under Category:Sports equipment retail companies. Apply this name change down through the sub-categories such as 'by country', 'in the United States', etc.
  3. Rename Category:Sporting goods retailers by sport to Category:Sports equipment retail companies by sport , and possible create a Category:Sports equipment shops by sport to go under Category:Sports equipment shops if there is a need.
  4. Rename "X retailers" categories to either "X equipment retail companies" or "X equipment shops", depending on which is appropriate for content of the given company.
  5. Some of the content under categories such as Category:Sporting shops in the United States is really higher-level retail companies, not the actual shops.

These changes would result in the following structure:

The primary benefits of this would be consistent hierarchy (Hierarchic Principle) and naming (Universality Principle), with a structure that clearly delineates between 'shops' as the specific physical retail buildings of companies and 'retail companies' which include but go beyond the shops themselves to include all facets of a retail business. I know this is a big chunk to re-structure and it can't really be done in one fell swoop, but I think we should at least set something like this up as the target so it can be transitioned to this structure and new content can be added to this model instead of merely expanding the existing mess. Josh (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment As to another part of Jmabel (talk · contribs)'s post, discussing the distinction between different eras of "sporting goods": Currently, Category:Outdoor gear and Category:Hunting equipment are categorized under Category:Sports equipment so I think it would easily fit into the hierarchy I described above. Thus whether we are talking old or new connotations of "sporting goods", I think outdoor gear and/or hunting equipment shops fit just fine under sports equipment shops. Josh (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Offhand I think that works. Recreational fishing equipment belongs in there as well as hunting. Heavy overlap, but there are plenty of fishing equipment shops that don't carry guns or bows. Also -- I didn't look into this -- hunting-oriented shops must significantly intersect gun shops, but there are definitely gun shops that aren't particularly about hunting. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs

There are several issues with this category, including scope, categorization, and name to start with. Josh (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. The name is unclear. Is it photographs from this office, or actually photographs of the office? It appears to be the former, so should be named in the format "Category:Photographs from the Office of the President of Taiwan"
  2. It is only categorized as a topical category under Category:Officials of the Government-General of Taiwan but this is probably not good. If the images are just from the president's office, they are not necessarily images of officials, though most probably are. Nonetheless, this does not appear to be a topical category, but instead a media source category, so should be in the Category:Images by source tree instead.
  3. Images here are mostly not included in any other topical categories. This makes them all but unfindable by any user that does not specifically narrow their search to images specifically sourced from the president's office.

It appears that this category was created in an attempt to fix the fact that these images were listed under Media needing categories by giving them a category. However, giving them a nonsense category to be hidden in is not a real fix. They need to be given comprehensive real categorization by topic before they are removed from Media needing categories. I propose the following:

  1. Restore the images in Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs to their correct place in Category:Media needing categories. From there they can be correctly sorted into proper topical categories so they are useful to the project.
  2. Any images in both Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs and Category:Images from the Office of the President of the Republic of China Flickr stream be removed from Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs.

Merge Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs into Category:Images by the Office of the President of the Republic of China (Taiwan).

  1. Delete Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs

@Photo Archives, Jmabel, Herbert Ortner, and RZuo: pinging participants from VP conversation. Josh (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Agree. A pseudo-topical category that is a source category in disguise is a sheer liability. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    HI, I was using Google Translate and saw that there were images in dozens of areas that the President and Vice-president were attending functions. It would have taken so long to make individual Cat's as I don't speak or read Chinese so I put them in the most logical and relavent Category i could think of. But as there is a similar Cat go ahead and make the transfer and appropriate deletion. I vote for the change. Photo Archives (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
i'm moving them to meaningful topical cats directly. this needs a few weeks. RZuo (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
i finished removing all taiwanese files. RZuo (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Railway signalling wires

see also existing discussion on Category talk:Railway signalling wires
Category:Railway signalling wiresMove to/Rename asCategory:Railway signal wires
per move request by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs): "Revert undiscussed and inappropriate bulk rename of this and the children. It was better before."
@Andy Dingley and Radiojunkie: : It would be great if there were some references to point to on what industry naming standards are for this sort of thing. Josh (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 Question are these wires intended to include electrical wires for signal transmission, physical control cables, or both? Josh (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Good question. I would say definitely not (the mechanical wires to control signals are a justified category of their own), and that's why we should avoid a name that potentially confuses those others into this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner, Andy Dingley, and Radiojunkie: So far, according to the images included, I have the impression that there were no bigger problems with understanding the purpose and definition of the category, and the category is only used for physical-control pull cables, as it was meant. However, it is true that the English name is inaccurate and misleading. The only linked article is cs:Drátovod, whose name is utterly unambiguous (= "a device that conducts wires", "conduit of wires") and this Czech name covers both the signaling and the control function (in German: Drahtzugleitung). Unfortunately, I can no longer remember where I got the chosen English name 12 years ago (probably from some related texts in English Wikipedia). I agree that colleagues who know the technical English should look for a more appropriate and documentable technical term in English, if there exists one for this matter. Google translator offers "wire pull line", but Google images diplay quite different things under this name. Unfortunately, we have very few images from Anglophone countries that are named by expert native speakers. The article en:Railway semaphore signal#Operation uses no special terms for those control wires, or uses unspecific words "signal wires". The article en:Boom barrier is very short and doesn't mention the distant mechanical control, as well as en:Railroad switch doesn't mention that. --ŠJů (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Vertebrata (female)

Category:Vertebrata (female)Move to/Rename asCategory:Female vertebrata
fix incorrect use of dab section (vertebrata are not a subset of female).
Josh (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: I was going to close this one and do the rename. But then I noticed that the same issue exists with Category:Vertebrata (male). Then I noticed that the same issue exists with a lot of other taxonomy categories. I could process the male and female vertebrata categories per this request (even though male wasn't specified), but would you rather open a new CFD for all the similarly-named taxonomy categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6 You are correct that this should be handled systemically, not done as a one-off change. Thanks for looking into it. At the moment, I don't have the time to do a comprehensive listing, so I'm fine with tabling this discussion until such a list can be presented and discussed as a whole. Thanks! Josh (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: I did a search, and here are the ones I came up with that 1) have the "(female)" qualifier and 2) looked related to taxonomy. I know the male ones should be done, too, but I figure there are probably equivalents of these on the male side. There are 348 of these, by the way. Feel free to remove any you think don't need to be changed. We can also have this discussion in a different forum if you think we should.


The list
--Auntof6 (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6 Thank you for doing that! I think that is sufficient to say that (male) categories are also covered without needing to explicitly list them as well. I would certainly support changing these from 'Topic (female/male)' to 'female/male Topic' format. This complies with Commons 'sentence format' category naming principles. On a side note, I get that there are reasons why 'sentence format' may not appeal to some users in certain topics, especially scientific or technical topics, but this is a broader Commons-wide policy to use sentence format category names that would have to change if we were to keep a 'vertebrata, female' or 'vertebrata (female)' type of convention. Josh (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Note...do you think it is meaningful to add CfD tags to these pages, or maybe to some parent pages? Josh (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: There are hundreds of taxonomy categories following the format "taxon (male)", "taxon (female)" and "taxon (juvenile)". Do you propose to rename all of these to "male taxon", "female taxon" and "young taxon" (I prefer "young taxon" over "juvenile taxon" for the sake of consistency)? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413 I would, yes, in compliance with Commons category policies. I have no preference one way or the other when it comes to 'young' vs. 'juvenile' and my proposal was not necessarily to change any terminology, just the formatting. Josh (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: Then I  Support your proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I would prefer "juvenile" rather than "young". The term "young" is relative, but "juvenile" specifically means not yet adult. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wayside shrines in Japan

神社、寺院、モニュメント・記念建造物、塑像などと同じように、ja:Category:路傍の神仏にカテゴライズされるお地蔵さん、祠、道祖神‎などを県別カテゴリにできないだろうかと考えています。対象は、宗教と明確に結び付けられる像または祠・お堂で、道路沿いに位置するあるいは街・野山に神社・寺院から独立して存在するものとなります。ただし、どの程度の大きさの祠・お堂を対象とするのかなど、正確な定義が難しいところもあります。

なお、ウィキメディア外のプロジェクト用に奈良市・京都市で作成されたCategory:Wayside Place of Worship in Nara, Category:Wayside Place of Worship in Kyotoというものがあります。これは特定の目的用としてそのまま（隠しカテゴリ化して）据え置くのが適当ではないかと思います。

以下を原案に提示します。階層構造で、"~~ in Japan by prefecture‎"はその下位に県別カテゴリを置きます。リンクなしが新規作成です。

  • Category:Wayside shrines in Japan
    • Wayside Buddhist statues in Japan（Category:Nobotokeを移動） - 地蔵以外の阿弥陀像、観音像などの仏教関係の像。路傍のもの。
    • Wayside Buddhist temples in Japan - 仏教関係のお堂。路傍の小規模のもの。
      • Wayside Buddhist temples in Japan by prefecture‎
    • Wayside Shinto shrines in Japan（Category:Hokoraを移動またはそのまま使用?） - 神道系の祠・小祠・小堂。路傍の小規模のもの。
      • Wayside Shinto shrines in Japan by prefecture‎（またはHokora by prefecture?）
    • Wayside shrines in Japan by prefecture‎ - 下位にWayside Buddhist statues in Japan by prefecture‎, Wayside Buddhist temples in Japan, Wayside Shinto shrines in Japan。仏教系・神道系どちらでもない祠・お堂はこちらに分類。

ただし、分類にあたりいくつかの不明点があります。

  • 例えば庚申塔(Category:Kōshin-tō)は道教に由来し、神仏習合さらに民間信仰も融合したもののようですが、これはどの宗教と分類しがたい。このようなものがほかにもありそうだと思います。
  • カテゴリ名Wayside "shrines"だと建物（屋根）を有するものが対象になるため、Wayside Buddhist statuesはWayside shrinesの下位にはするべきではないかもしれません。ja:Category:路傍の神仏に相当する包括的カテゴリがあればいいなと考えていますので、"Wayside shrines in Japan"ではなく別のカテゴリ名にしたほうがよいかもしれません。
  • どの程度の大きさの祠・お堂を対象とするのか議論の余地があると思います。ただ、拝殿と本殿をもつような、人が中に入れるような神社・寺院と、路傍の人が入れないようなものもある祠・お堂が別のものとして認識されるのは一般的であり、カテゴリを分けたいと考えています。

私自身この分野に決して詳しいとは言えないため、みなさまの意見を頂戴しながら、ゆっくりと議論を重ねていければと思います。--Peka (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)