this cat is now mixing cats of chemical compounds and cats of chemical diagrams together. for example, Category:Sodium chloride NaCl is a specific compound existing in the real world. Category:Chemical formulas are manmade diagrams that represent something. now they're mixed up as "structures".
but i dont have no solution to how to untangle this mess. RZuo (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@RZuo: Well I certainly don't have an overall solution either, but there are a few distinct observations:
Chemical substances is the seemingly correct parent of this category. Any files showing a substance without enough granularity to reveal its chemical structure should be pushed up to that level.
There is more to do and probably some expert assessment of the contents to implement fully, but this is a start. Josh (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoyZuo: Any feedback? --Leyo 14:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Support no need for this double structure. The best would be to move the content to Category:Military of Russia and the creation of a category redirect. --Mosbatho (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Wait There is more to this issue that needs to be resolved. I am not against eliminating unnecessary duplication, but these are nominally two different concepts. Military of Russia is the intersectional category of Military and Russia. As such, any content of a military topic related to Russia should be categorized in this tree. Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is a specifically defined organization and while it probably encompasses the vast majority of military affairs in Russia, that is not exclusively so. For example, a ceremony which happens today in Moscow in remembrance of the Red Army during WWII should be under Military of Russia somewhere. However, it has nothing to do with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (they didn't exist for another 50 years). Josh (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment Hi Josh! Look up, Russia or the Russian Federation is not synonymous with the Soviet Union. There is already a corresponding category tree for the soviet union. Consequently, there is no use for the current category. --Mosbatho (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Mosbatho: Perhaps I was not clear. I am expressly speaking about the current-day Russia, not the Soviet Union. Josh (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: Good point! I agree. "Military of Russia" is too general as it squeezes two historical regimes under one roof. We should differentiate between the current "new" Russia since 1991 and Tsarist Russia until 1917. At the moment, however, we have a fuzzy category situation that is more ambiguous than unambiguous. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is ambiguous about it. Russia is the current country, Soviet Union is a former country, Russian Empire is an even more former country, we can go back further, but each has its own distinct category.
Per the Universality Principle, that means any category using "Russia" is for the current country, the "Soviet Union" is for the former country, the "Russian Empire" is for the even more former country, and so on.
Thus, this category is exclusively for contents with a relation to the current country. Nothing ambiguous about it.
I may have introduced confusion in my comment by refering to the "Red Army" (a Soviet Union thing), but I was only referring to it as being honored in current Russia, which is a topic related to the current Russia, and which belongs in this category as a result. Josh (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep There are military topics related to Russia which are not expressly part of Russia's official armed forces.
Rename Category:Clash of civilizations to Category:Clash of Civilizations as correct capitalization for a proper noun. However, this whole category seems suspect. The images do not appear to be taken from the book. I checked it out at OpenLibrary and it has a few maps that were maybe the inspiration for some of this content, but they are definitely not directly from the book. @LaundryPizza03: do you know anything about this? Josh (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: Are you suggesting that these files are copyright infringement of a secondary source about the book, that they are unacceptable as derivative works of the maps in the book, or that there is some other problem that requires deletion? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03: , no idea about any infringement, and not even saying they need to be deleted, but I do not even see what their relationship to the book is in the first place. Generally, if a map image is placed in a book category, it indicates that the map image is from the book, but these maps are clearly not from the book. Thus I do not see why they are in this category in the first place. Just trying to figure out what we are dealing with here. Josh (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03: I see. So they are new maps which are based on a reading of the book in an attempt to map out concepts described in the book, if I get you correctly. At least that explains what they are doing here. And what about Maps of the Western World? Are these also based on the book? Assuming so, we should do a bit of renaming and organization so it is more clear what is going on:
This way it is clear that these maps are specific to descriptions within the book and not to be confused with the 'real world'. Josh (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Joshbaumgartner (talk·contribs) The Western world maps are not necessarily based on Clash of Civilizations. Some of them are based on other sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03: Oof, that's a problem. If they are not based on Clash of Civilizations, they should not be under it. The Western World cat should be removed from Clash of Civilizations though if some of the maps are so based, they should be copied to Maps based on Clash of Civilization. Josh (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh hi, I only see this now. Huntington had one basic map, as far as I remember from school when this was a fresh and hip theory. His books are still copyrighted anyway, so actually none of the content here is allowed directly out of his book until 2078. Huntington popularized the whole concept of this Clash however, which led to lots of people create "modified" maps and graphics. Just see how the borders deviate. Whether or not each single map is properly grounded in the same academic foundations of Huntington, the concept of cultural faultlines on world maps is an important part of political studies. So this category is in my opinion more about a theory in flux, not merely a collection of material from the original book. It may be better to have this category to collect CoC-related graphics, and having it as "Clash of civilizations" (lower case) seems okay with me. This also means that maps defining "the Western World culture" have some merit here, too: Huntington's theory indicated that the faultline between Latin America and the rest of the West were much less prominent, meaning that most of the "maps of the Western world" are following either his narrow or his broader definitions.
However, we should write an introduction or definition for the category. --Enyavar (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Which are the "unrelated images" that you speak of? Again, this is not a category for the content of Huntington's book: His original BW map is copyrighted like all the rest of his book. If this category is about his book, we could move all images from the category to a new one like "C-o-c-related maps and diagrams" and rename this category with Capitalization to leave it empty until 2078/2079. Sure. Yet, we could also not do that. --Enyavar (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the above WhisperToMe (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Disagree the Japanese government explain education system here. I cannot find "Junior High School". is it really common? --eien20 (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
This category is empty. What should it contain? I don’t know what ‘with’ means. I am sure that we have plenty of images of females wearing brassieres in public, but they are not here! Brianjd (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Oops. May have forgotten about it or image(-s) have been deleted. Added a few I knew from the top of my head. Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
A few comments:
Is "in public" supposed to mean that the bras are visible? Many women wear bras in public, just without them being visible.
Some of the images added here do not show brassieres, just closely fitted dress bodices. In fact, with some of those, the person may be wearing no bra at all, visible or otherwise.
I think including sports bras is misleading -- people don't usually think of sports bras the same way they think of regular bras, and sports bras are commonly worn as outerwear.
Just my thoughts. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
All of the contents are actually wearing a brassieres, so "wearing" is a more specific relation than "with" (which could include women simply holding a bra or even just pictured along with one in the same image). This complies with the Modularity Principle.
"As outer wear" better exemplifies the nature of the contents, in that they are worn in such a way intended to be the outer visible layer of clothing.
There are a few contents that appear not to actually be brassieres, but instead are perhaps 'brassiere-styled' clothing of other types (such as dresses where the top looks like a bra). Josh (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure "as outerwear" describes it. A woman might be appearing in underwear, fully aware that she's not wearing anything over it, but that doesn't mean the bra is outerwear. One example I can think of is someone doing cosplay of Janet from Rocky Horror, such as this image. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@JoshbaumgartnerYes, this is what I'm trying to categorize. "worn in such a way intended to be the outer visible layer of clothing", "'brassiere-styled' clothing of other types" Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@Tobias ToMar Maier and Auntof6: Definitely good points. I don't know that 'as outer wear' is the best description, but just something better than 'in public' (someone could be wearing a bra under a shirt and be wearing that bra in public, but I don't think that meets the scope of this category). My idea was not to say 'the bra is outer wear', but merely that, as pictured, the bra is at that moment functioning as outer wear. This means it could be a normal bra one would wear under clothing, but simply does not have any clothing over it at the time, or is a bra that indended by the clothing or outfit designer to be normally the outer layer of an outfit. That said, if someone has a better phrase than 'as outer wear' to describe that condition, I am all for it. Something like 'women wearing publicly-visible brassieres'? This would encapsulate the fact that the bra is visible in the image and that it is not just in a private setting. Josh (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Question@Tobias ToMar Maier: Do you mean to say that you would like to categorize both 'actual brassieres' and 'other 'brassiere-styled' clothing' in the same category, or am I misreading your comment? Josh (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I mean to say that. The general thought is to show that brassieres or breast supporting garments are not always hidden underwear. The Bavarian dirndl dress would also fit (sometimes) into this category as the the additional bra underneath is more of a modern fashion item than a necessity with the proper tight fit of the upper part. Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with including anything that isn't an actual brassiere. There are breast-supporting garments that are not brassieres. For example, some corsets support the breasts, but they are not brassieres. Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with Auntof6 on this one, that since they are two distinct things, they deserve their own categories. Josh (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Following the discussion at VP here (archive) this seems like an odd subcategory of Category:Gallery pages of people. The others seem to be based on occupation or location but this is prone to arguments. The issue was whether Mohandas K. Gandhi belongs in this category next to Paris Hilton and Adolf Hitler. I suggest deleting it or catcating it into subcategories more like Category:Criminals by crime by actual conviction but it seems like an odd way for people to see categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. For people like Gandhi and Mandela who have been in jail, a category "X in jail" may be OK if we have documents to be included. Yann (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete. The problem is that the connotation of the word "criminal" goes way beyond the definition of "a person who has been convicted of a crime in some jurisdiction", but any other definition is going to be subjective. So we have a name here where the denotation and connotation do not match. - Jmabel! talk 20:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete Category:Gallery pages of criminals as conceived. If the contents were gallery pages specific to those images of a person relating to their criminal behavour, then maybe, but I do not know of any such gallery pages. As it is, this is set to have lots of gallery pages which contain exactly zero images of a given person engaged in crime or even being prosecuted or jailed. Josh (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment I agree with the deletion, but what about the rest of Category:Criminals? The problem with "criminals" isn't isolated to gallery pages. Should Gandhi be in Category:Criminals from India? Category:Persons convicted for [...] might be acceptable, but we still have the problem with people being convicted for stigmatising crimes for political reasons. –LPfi (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Let's have a separate CFD for that. I think it's a dumb categorization generally but it may be kept with us arguing each category on a case-by-case basis. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep per Ricky81682, let's not argue each individual category. "Criminal" can be a neutral description, though with negative connotations. I don't think those negative connotations warrant the deletion or depopulation of valid categories. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Elizium23 I'm not suggesting keep. Are you looking at the parent criminals category? Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry my rationale was unclear due to sequencing and punctuation.
Keep – I don't think those negative connotations warrant the deletion or depopulation of valid categories.
[new thought] Per Ricky81682, let's not argue each individual category. Elizium23 (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Elizium23 Except we all do it all the time. It is not in this discussion because we first need to resolve the larger question of the category before we go further. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The main question is whether a category about "criminals" (or the category tree, or some specific subcategory like this) is valid. For what is it used? What do people search for when looking in that category tree? I assume most people would be looking for some famous criminals, or typical mugshots or whatever, not politicians who have been sentenced for some crime. Politicians sentenced for corruption, or convicted in totally political trials, might be valid and useful subcategories of something like this, but wouldn't there be a better word than "criminal" for those cases. By choosing a word that doesn't fit appropriate content, we reduce the usability of the category. Perhaps somebody would be looking for the likes of Gandhi, but the naming of the category means they aren't looking here. –LPfi (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This is true: if we think of this from a user-centric point of view, the reader who seeks out search terms like "criminal" will not be looking for Gandhi, MLK, Martha Stewart or Jesus; they're looking for Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, Adolf Hitler, et. al.
I would say that this category could be useful if we established objective and narrow scope and inclusion criteria for it. For example, on enwiki there is a template called {{Infobox criminal}} and naturally this is only applied to people who are criminals in the narrow definition: someone who is most notable for their crimes, had a life of crime, or this is what is chiefly documented in the sources. A person whose notability rests upon their crimes would be the perfect candidate for this gallery and applicable categories. And then we could more or less rightly exclude the folk heroes who were convicted of crimes that are only incidental to notability.
I'm not sure if we could rightly exclude high-profile, righteous political prisoners such as Nelson Mandela, or Mumia Abu-Jamal, but I think even their admirers would concede that they are, technically, criminals? Elizium23 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete A category like "criminals" lumps together serial killers and jay-walkers and political prisoners. --RAN (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone at Category talk:Rendered name of Albania seriously considers rendered text of Albania unique so the actual question is about: (1) the name of this parent category and each child category and (2) whether this category should be a child of Category:Symbols of countries and whether each child should also be in the respective child category. I'm perfectly fine with keeping these in place (Category:Names of countries seems odd as these are under Category:Rendered texts) and keeping each one as a symbol of the country as it is a decent enough subcategory of Category:Countries. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
If not under Category:Symbols of FOO COUNTRY, where might these better belong under the category for FOO COUNTRY? I don't see a better place. - Jmabel! talk 20:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I am in agreement with the proposal made by Adamant1 (talk·contribs) in placing the images under the Category:Simple text logos. Perhaps creating a new subcategory Category:Simple text logos by country. Kj1595 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Even if some of these files are indeed "simple text logos", let’s be clear about one critical detail: These categories deal with two things each: the name of a country and a type of text — and therefore each of them must have two parent cats: One within the subcat tree under text by type and another within the subcat tree under said country. Here we’re dealing with the latter, while the mentioned proposal about "simple text logos" is about the former.
Also, please note that Category:Simple text logos is populated by the licensing template {{PD-textlogo|simple}} so it’s probably a good idea to keep it (and its subcat tree?) away from manual categorization.
These categories deal with two things each: the name of a country and a type of text I strongly disagree that the category should deal with the type of text. Putting aside the other categories involving "rendered" images for a moment, lets say I'm a random user that wants to categorize an image of the word "Albania." How exactly would I know if it is "rendered" or not and why would I even care about categorizing the image by "type of image" in the first place? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Trying to understand you:
It seems that you are saying that you strongly disagree that a category about X of Y should have as parent cats both Category:X and Category:Y.
As for your question, a random user would categorize an image of the word "Albania" under Category:Albania, and from there it would be dissiminated (by other random users) down to the appropriate category. I’m sure we all agree about that.
You seem to be strangely hung up on the word "rendered". If it bugs you so much, then please open another CfD in Category:Rendered texts and fight your battle there.
Somewhere in this discussion it was already explained why some things belong here and other belong in its parent cat Category:Country names. Do you disagree with that, too?
Concerning the given example about Canada, some thoughts:
Category:Simple text logos of Canada, as exemplified by its current contents, is only partially related to the subject at hand: Except for its subcat Category:Canada wordmark (which is properly categorized under Category:Symbols of Canada), the rest are unrelated text samples that happen to pertain to entities headquartered in Canada, like company logos. At most, this should/could share a common (grand)parent cat with Category:Rendered name of Canada, but nothing more.
Category:Canada (text), and many of this kind of litteral categories, has the potential to become a disambiguation category, as the word "canada" has various meanings in several languages, apart from the country name.
And, of course, this applies to most other countries, not just especially Canada. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 23:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Jmabel that there’s no better place. However, seeing how this user was unsettled by the notion of Commons conflating generic symbols of a country (things like its ccTLD, former national flags, unofficial nicknames and personifications, streets named after that country, etc etc) with its official national symbols, I propose that, for each of these country categories named Category:Symbols of Country, we create an intermediate Category:National symbols of Country to have as its parent cats both the said Category:Symbols of Country and Category:National symbols. Only officially sanctioned current national symbols of each contry would go on these new cats, leaving everything else within the current cats. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 23:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I like where you are going with that, but it does not seem that merely adding 'national' to 'symbols of Country' does the trick, if the trick is to segregate official from non-official symbology. Instead, lets keep it simple and say what we mean and call it "Official symbols of Country". This is much more clearly to be only those symbols that are officially sanctioned. "National symbols of Country" just sounds like duplication, in that 'national' simply implies that they are of the country. Josh (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@DMacks: Any reaction from your side? --Leyo 12:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep: thiamine is just one vitamer of vitamin B1. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
If all the thiamines (including xxphosphate forms) are vitamers of B1, then Marbletan is correct that there is still a mistake in categorization, but it is instead that those all need to move as subcats (and check for other overcatgorization) rather than the merger I proposed. This is not my field of speciality. DMacks (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Most of the subcategories here contain existing Commons images which have been filed under which part of the fictional Backrooms universe they resemble. It's unclear whether the inclusion criteria is that the image has been reused on a fan wiki (eg. File:Caulophryne pelagica.jpg appears with CC credit at https://backrooms.fandom.com/wiki/The_Thing_on_Level_7) or if an editor just felt that the picture reminded them of a particular aspect of Backrooms lore. I don't think either of these is a useful form of categorisations for Commons, and it doesn't seem ideal that the few pieces of original Backrooms artwork here are quite hard to identify, to a user who is looking for them.
I suggest that Category:The Backrooms levels, its subcategories, and also Category:The Thing on Level 7 be removed, with original images which have been created to illustrate the concept and which aren't also in Category:The Backrooms entities being moved into the main Category:The Backrooms. Pre-existing Commons photos which have just had the category added to them because they look a bit like the Backrooms should be removed from these categories. Belbury (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I know little about the Backrooms creepypasta lore. I was simply trying to clean up and organize the category in a manner that made it easier to navigate. --Trade (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Images in these categories seem to be breaking down into
The Backrooms wiki seems pretty good about only using CC licenced images, but Commons may as well host the original and credit the original photographer, rather than saying it came from the Backrooms wiki and is CC but anonymous. (File:Artistdiesinme.jpg was the latter, and turned out to be a file Commons already had at higher resolution at File:Dora Dora 1 - Interiør på bakkenivå (2013) (10998312184).jpg.)
I don't think we should be categorising either of these as "a picture of the Backrooms, specifically Level 3 of the Backrooms" just because someone (a Commons user or a Backrooms wiki user) saw it and thought that. There are a few original drawings and renders of the Backrooms, which can be in the main Category:The Backrooms and the "entities" subfolders, but I think that's all that should be here. Belbury (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Support The categories seem to force certain interpretations of the Backrooms canon onto preexisting media and thus should be removed from the Backrooms categories.
Support, the Backrooms levels categories seem to contain images that are vaguely similar to the creepypasta locations, but are not actually meant to represent them. For example, Category:Electrical Station is full of images of actual real-world electrical stations. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I have made an attempt to clean up the category @Di (they-them) and Belbury: --Trade (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Yodin: my guess is that, if there is a Wikidata link, subcategorization could be taken into consideration, that is, if there are different images. Lotje (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@Yodin: , since the original title was Stumme Liebe that would imo be the most logical category with different subcategories per language. Would make it musch easier I guess for readers not familiar with the English language. Thank you for your thoughts. Lotje (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok! The category naming policy says:
Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version).
So I would be ok with renaming these categories to their original German titles (the stories are most frequently discussed in academic sources which use the original German titles, rather than English translations). I would also like to rename Category:Musaeus Volksmaehrchen der Deutschen to Category:Volksmährchen der Deutschen.
Pinging @Stoll, who created these categories for their thoughts. ‑‑YodinT 14:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
That's an amazing edition! 😁 And yep, I know what you mean (interestingly one of Naubert's stories in Neue Volksmaehrchen der Deutschen was an addition to Musäus' "Legenden von Rübezahl": "Erdmann und Marie, ein Nachtrag zu den Legenden vom Rübezahl"). ‑‑YodinT 20:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank's for pinging me. I didn't realize Stumme Liebe may more often (?) be translated as The Spectre-Barber. Wouldn't prefer the categories in German, though. German Wikipedia has articles about each fairy tale, which include pictures and link Commons. Grimms' Fairy Tales - Categories are all in English, too. Stoll (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Stoll: Unlike the Grimms' tales, most of these stories are very rarely discussed in English, and when they are (normally by academics), they tend to use the original German titles. For example, with Stumme Liebe, JSTOR has only 3 search results for "Spectre Barber", and 27 results for "Stumme Liebe". When I started the English Wikipedia article, I chose the title "The Spectre-Barber" mostly on the basis of how this story was referred to in the 19th century press, which I now regret (I've been thinking of proposing to move it). Another example, Richilde, the English Wikipedia article was given the German spelling (Richilde) rather than following the English translations (Richilda), in line with how it's commonly referred to these days. One story (Liebestreue) has never even been translated into English, and the literal translation given in English Wikipedia was just a gloss to explain the meaning of the German title (in fact, that's what all the translations at wikipedia:en:Volksmärchen der Deutschen are; they don't represent how these stories are referred to in the English speaking world). I understand wanting to make the category names consistent here on Commons, but many fairy stories (especially literary fairy stories like these) are given in their original languages, such as at Category:Literary fairy tales, and Category:German fairy tales. ‑‑YodinT 13:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Well then, if the original titles are the ones usually referred to, you are right. So the categories should be renamed. Stoll (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Rename Category:Groups of Primates to Category:Groups of primates for proper capitalization. Similar to "mammals" (not capitalized) vs. "Mammalia" (capitalized). The word "primates" should not be capitalized. Josh (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Primates is not only the plural of primate but also the name of the order, so it can be a valid title similar to cat:Groups of Canidae. i have no idea which is preferred by commons users involved in biology/zoology. RoyZuo (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
According to HMS_Swallow_(1745), "The first Swallow of the Merlin class was wrecked in the Bahamas in December 1744, and another ship of the class was given the same name to replace her."
All of the images in this category are clearly of the 2nd ship, launched on 1745-12-14, except for two drawings, that apply to all the vessels in this class.
It is very unlikely any images survive from the 11 months the first HMS Swallow was afloat, so I propose this category be renamed Category:HMS Swallow (ship, 1745). Geo Swan (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I have created an additional cat to cover it. The wikidata item for 45 has been connected too. --Broichmore (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Copied from that talk page:
As I can understand, now the company is called Leonardo, as reported in the official site [:https://www.leonardo.com www.leonardo.com]. In english wikipedia is en:Leonardo S.p.A., in all the other wikis usually just Leonardo, but not everywhere, Leonardo-Finmeccanica it's the old name. Nowhere it's Leonardo Company. What is better to do? @Scip.: @Wieralee: . If I have to ask somewhere else or to do something else, I'll try to do it, but I think that it's better to stop to move these categories so often. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
the comapny name is Leonardo Company MAxSper5 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
yes I know it's not Leonardo-Finmeccanica anymore MAxSper5 (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If the official name is Leonardo Company, can you explain why in the official site it's only "Leonardo"? MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
yes, Leonardo S.p.A. is the lagal name. There is a difference between the legal name and the brand name MAxSper5 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
LeftSo also the logo doesn't show the brand name? The site has the wrong name as well. Very strange. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The logo is another question. Also when the name was Leonardo-Finmeccanica the logo was only Leonardo MAxSper5 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
provide not me, but Commons, with official sources that prove the "Leonardo Company" is the official and complete name and show - again not me, but commons - that the site, the logo and so on with denomination "Leonardo" are wrong. Thank you for cooperation. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the name Leonardo is wrong, but that Leonardo Company is more correct, and I have already explained the reasons above. MAxSper5 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
You moved all the categories just fixed in last days. And now you ask to delete Category:Leonardo (company), and probably also this page will be deleted. The motivation you provided for me are not enough and I think that "Leonardo Company", as now, it's not a real name of this company. I will not edit more (so if you want to save this talkpage, please remove this edit ], I'll wait more opinions. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@MrKeefeJohn: please try to get an admin involved, who will clean up the mess this guy is creating here and in other categorys too. This user MAxSper5 talks absolut nonsense. Should be banned. Scip. (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
(end talk page quote)
Keep Category:Leonardo (company) as "Leonardo" is the name of the company and how it styles itself in English. We do not typically need to append the 'S.p.A.' onto companies unless they are quite commonly styled that way by the company and it would be unusual to see the company name without it. As for "Company" being part of the name, that seems completely wrong. Indeed, occasionally there are written uses that append 'company' in English, as they might for any company 'the Ford company', 'the Mitsubishi company', etc. but this is not really part of the name. As for it being used on some social media platforms, of course 'Leonardo' is a generic enough name that they probably couldn't get it as their user name on all platforms, so appended something, but in each case where they can style their name as they intend it, it is just "Leonardo". Thus keep it as it is. Josh (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep Category:Leonardo (company) Obviously I do agree with @Scip.: . I can only repeat what I have already wrote: now the company is called Leonardo, as reported in the official site [:https://www.leonardo.com www.leonardo.com], the legal name is Leonardo S.p.A, Leonardo S.p.A., Leonardo-Finmeccanica it's the old name. Nowhere it's Leonardo Company. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
note: both Village Pump and WP:Auto have been solicited for comment on this discussion
Recently, the following bad category names were brought forward for discussion, but the original poster (Davey2010) withdrew their proposal and closed the discussion before a solution could be hammered out.
Regardless, the problem remains, in that "Peugeot Expert I" (and the others listed below) isn't a real name used for the automobile in question. I support the following renames:
This is by no means an exhaustive list! I have found several others in recent browsing that are equally poorly named and desperate for a rename.
Currently, there is no standard for naming automotive model year ranges ('generations'), and the following were some of the formats I was able to quickly spot throughout automobiles:
Category:Fuso Canter (5th generation) (numeric generation) -- a variation on the one above but using number vs word form, seemingly a little less common
Category:Citroën Jumper (1994–2006) (year range) -- this is actually the main model of the Peugeot Expert above (note each manufacturer may have a different range of years)
Category:Ford Econoline (1961) (release year) -- a variation on the above with only the release year listed, matching one of the last changes made to the Automobiles WP, right before both the project and its only regular contributor went inactive in 2016.
Category:Mazda MX-5 (ND) (body code) -- adding official body code in parenthesis--this is what Autos WP was recommending for those cases where such codes are known and meaningful.
Category:Ford Mustang V (pseudo-suffix) -- adding a pseudo-suffix to the end of the model for each generation. This is the worst in my opinion.
Category:1974 Ford Mustang (model year) -- this is the traditional common way to refer to a specific model year as opposed to a 'generation', and appears to be in normal use like this so I wouldn't change anything at the model year level.
Having found that in practice, automotive categories are all over the map on which format is used, I believe if we are going to make any meaningful fixes, it should probably serve as a standard going forward. Not that all of these categories need to be changed overnight, but we should select a preferred format and let that percolate through the topic guiding new category creation and future renames as they make sense without needing a new discussion for every brand or model. I propose that the Category:Citroën Jumper (1994–2006) format (model name with production span in parenthesis) is the most optimal balance in light of categorization principles and the topic in question, for several reasons:
Made-up names posing as real proper names (such as Vauxhall Vivaro Mk 3) are an outright falsehood and should be eliminated.
"Generation" is not a universal term. While generally understood in the car community, it is only sometimes even acknowledged by the manufacturers and seems an exonym at best. Additionally, being a generic word requiring translation to read in other languages, it gets a negative from the i18n perspective. Numeric representation is perhaps a hair better than spelled out in this regard, but still, I do think avoiding 'generation' in the title (unless it really is in the official name) is best. Better than a truly fake name, but only a bit so.
Listing only the release year for a category that represents a range of years is problematic at best. It misleads users as to the contents of the category, for example, a 1965 Econoline would belong in Ford Econoline (1961). Additionally, for cases where there are categories for individual model years, we need to be able to differentiate between a category for a range of years and a category for a specific year.
Listing range instead of a single year seems to solve all of the previous issue without creating any problem, so is a much more comprehensive solution.
As for those using recognized body codes, I think it is okay to allow these to remain as they are, presuming that the body code is verifiably accurate and the model in question routinely is referred to in common usage by this code. The Mazda MX-5 (ND) is a good example of this as "ND" is routinely peppered into trade articles, online commentary and references, and even the company's own official literature. That said, if folks think this exception is a problem, I would be fine with eliminating it and simply applying the (year range)
In short, year range (as in Citroën Jumper (1994–2006)) offers the most concise clarity and best i18n while being clean and easy to both implement and use for experienced and new users alike. Josh (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Obviously each of these on their own is perfectly reasonable. However, if we combine the three, we get Russian-language books from Russia about geography. Is this reasonable? I think it might be, if the following are true:
The origin of a work, the language of a work, and the topic of a work are sufficiently interrelated to warrant recognizing the nexus of them (e.g. do we care what language a Russian book about geography is written in?)
There are multiple books on Commons that are in the Russian language, are from Russia, and are about geography (do we have content to fill such a category?)
There are several books on Commons that are in the Russian language and are from Russia, but are about different topics (is there a need to sub-categorize Russian-language books from Russia by topic?)
There are several books on Commons that are in the Russian language and are about geography, but are from different countries (is there a need to sub-categorize Russian-language books about geography by country?)
There are several books on Commons that are from Russian and about geography, but are in different languages (is there a need to sub-categorize Books from Russia about geography by language?)
If all are true, then the category makes sense. If #1 or #2 is not true, there is no need analyzing the last three, it is a moot point. If not all of the last three are true, there could still be a case made based on those that are true but it would be harder.
There is a meaningful connection between the topic of a book and what country it is from. This is subjective and so discussion can follow below.
There are multiple books on Commons that are from Russia and are about geography. This appears to be true.
There are several books on Commons that are from Russia but are about different topics. This appears to be true.
There are several books on Commons about geography but they are from different countries. This appears to be true.
So Books from Russia about geography meets all of the 'technical' criteria and it is only a question of whether it matters what country a book about geography might come from, or what topic a book from Russia might be written about.
I would argue that there is a basis for this connection being meaningful. Different countries approach a given topic from a different perspective. A basic example would be continents: different countries maintain different models for how to define the continents (I believe for example, Russia generally teaches a single Eurasia vs. distinct Europe and Asia).
Likewise, I think Russian-language books about geography is also warranted. There may be a lot of overlap, but not all books from Russia are in Russian and not all books in Russian are from Russia, so they are distinct. Josh (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The categories in this meta-cat are a bit of an outlier on Commons, in using the adjectival form instead of the proper name of the country. Recommend switching to normal noun form of country Josh (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Universality Principle: Country categories use their short noun form, and so this should be used for all sub-cats. (e.g. Argentina is the name on Commons we should use in any category name referring to that country.)
Adjectival forms are not always universally agreed on or officially recognized. Both "Argentine" and "Argentinian" are used in different sources and contexts, and this is far from the only example.
In many cases, we have 'cheated' and just used the noun form (Aircraft in United States service). This I think is kind of an admission the noun form is really the better option.
Sorting is an issue, as the adjectival and noun forms do not always even end up close in the list. This might be a reason for the cheat above, but still is a problem: seeing an alphabetical list of adjectival forms, one might expect to find American aircraft under A, but instead they are under U.
Noun forms fits in naturally with the rest of Commons 'by country' categorization, while adjectival form is abnormal and does not.
I acknowledge this will take time and work to implement, but there are tools to make this simpler and easier, so that is not in my opinion a reason not to pursue the better path. Josh (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Klara Sielicka-Baryłka (WMPL): Thank you for your contributions. Normally, if you create a category and then realize it needs a different name, you can simply use {{Bad name|original category name}} on it. This will lead to it being deleted automatically without a CfD. I have no problem with this category being a Speedy delete (C2).
Of course, if the scope or purpose of this category is broader than that stated in the hat note, please comment here with details and we can refine accordingly. Thanks! Josh (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I would appreciate help with renaming this category if sth is not OK. Klara Sielicka-Baryłka (WMPL) (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Nonsensical category OmegaFallon (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
How would you describe a female cosplayer playing a rule-63 version of a male character, then? Arlo James Barnes 19:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
There's basically no way to discern this unless the Rule 63 version is a well-known separate entity. Otherwise it's just a girl dressing as a male character and there's no way to be able to tell otherwise. At the very least, "female-to-female crossplay" is a confusing and bad name that needs to be changed. OmegaFallon (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Question@Arlo Barnes and OmegaFallon: For the sake of those who might not be deeply aware of the lingo in this field, can you start with a basic answer to "what is female-to-female crossplay"? Thanks, Josh (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm asking. It's a nonsense term. Female-to-male crossplay is a female person cosplaying as a male character, male-to-female crossplay is a male person cosplaying as a female character. Female-to-female crossplay would imply a female person cosplaying as a female character, which obviously is a thing that happens but that's by definition not crossplay (crossplay = crossdressing + cosplay) OmegaFallon (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Anyways, Loki is genderfluid so this discussion is pointless. Web-julio (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Airfield or Airport? It's neither now, but should we use the first name (Airfield) or the last and longest-used name (Airport)? Or just leave it in Dutch (Vliegveld)? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Question@Andy Dingley and Gricle: Which names (Dutch and/or English) did this aerodrome officially go by, and for what years, if known? Josh (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
On second thought, it is better to use the official name. Gricle (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment by Mdd: About eight years ago, I had been wondering about the same question, and wanted to make some changes. But by then I noticed in English there are three phrases: airport, airfield and airstrip; and the one tot one translating to luchthaven, vliegveld and start/landingsbaan doesn't always work. Now I reconsidered the situation and noticed:
In the Netherlands the name "Vliegveld Ypenburg" is common, and "Luchthaven Ypenburg" or "Ypenburg Luchthaven" is not, see here and here
Just before it was closed in the early 1990s Vliegveld Ypenburg was a military airfield, if I am not mistaken. It was not (or hardly) used for transport of people or goods, but Fokker used the facilities for flight maintenance. There were hardly any flights in those days.
Due to the common name and this kind of use the phrase airfield seems more appropriate. Personally I got used to the phrase Ypenburg Aiport, and Ypenburg Airfield sounds unfamiliar, but that is my POV. Now, I don't know about the renaming of other Dutch airports/air fields, but in my personal experience we have only a few airports in the Netherlands: Schiphol, Zestienhoven en Eindhoven. Renaming the rest to airfields seems about right, but again that is my POV-- Mdd (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not really clear what the purpose of this category is. I don't think the Wikidata title is a good metric for what should or shouldn't go in the category either. Since "the study of cultural variation" can mean literally anything, which I think shows in the fact that the category is being used as a dump for a bunch of random images that essentially have nothing in commons. So can someone come up with a clear definition for what should or shouldn't go in this? If not, then my suggestion is that it should be deleted and the images either be up-merged or put in a different category system altogether. It's to much of a meaningless miss-mosh as things currently are though.
As a side to that I'd also like to know how exactly this category is different from Category:Anthropology since it supposedly covers the "study of humans, human behavior, and societies. Which is the same definition as the current definition for this category. That's minor problem to the other stuff though. Although I'd still like to see it clarified in the process. Adamant1 (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Cruft stuffing is a different problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware of Wikipedia and that specific article. Obviously just citing it doesn't answer my question though. Especially since it says exactly what the infobox does, that "it's the study of cultural variation." So to repeat my original question since you didn't actually answer it, what exactly should or shouldn't go in a category about "cultural variation", the study of it, and how exactly is this category different from Category:Anthropology, which has the exact same definition? To the "cruft stuffing", it's not a different problem if the "cruft stuffing" is a direct result of the fact that the category is ill-defined and to general. I think both are the case. Otherwise, what's your evidence that the cruft stuffing isn't being caused by the fact that "the study of cultural variation" is to ill-defined on it's own and as is to be a useful category title? Or is a link to a Wikipedia article that just repeats what I've already said all you have to contribute to the discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
"Serbian is one of four varieties of the pluricentric language known as Serbo-Croatian. This category already contains a couple of maps of Serbo-Croatian dialects unrelated to the Serbian standard. It could be repurposed, per SMALLCAT, to be the main category for en:Category:Dialects of Serbo-Croatian" - per original move request on 12 November 2022 by Vipz
CfD created to discuss incomplete move request. Josh (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
"duplicate" - per original move request on 28 December 2022 by Darrelljon
Created CfD based on incomplete move request. Tagged both categories for discussion. Josh (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
It seems the merge maybe should go in the opposite direction, given the parent category is Cityscapes, though perhaps should be pluralized as Streetscapes. Josh (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
sounds reasonable. oxford dict has the word "streetscapes", defined as "the appearance or a picture of a street or area of streets". RZuo (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
since Category:Streetscape was actually created earlier, turning "street scenes" into redirect is enough. and ofc move streetscape to plural. RZuo (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Moved all as suggested.--Darrelljon (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
another problem we should tackle as well -- the preposition.
i think "streetscapes of xx" is better than "in". (i'm not native speaker.) RZuo (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Unneeded due to [Category:Unidentified cosplay by work]. We also do not have a [Category:Cosplay by work] for the same reason OmegaFallon (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Tend to agree - if the work is identifiable, the cosplay is not a complete mystery. What is the intended use for the category? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Looking back at my old message I think I might have miss-copy-pasted something, because it really makes no sense. Anyways, the reason why we don't need this category is because unidentified cosplay categories for individual works are already in subcategories of medium. For example, Category:Unidentified cosplay of Pokémon is in Category:Unidentified cosplay of anime and manga. This category is empty, then, because there's no work that doesn't have a medium, of course. So it's just not needed. OmegaFallon (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Support no need for this double structure. The best would be to move the content to Category:Military of Russia and the creation of a category redirect. --Mosbatho (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Wait There is more to this issue that needs to be resolved. I am not against eliminating unnecessary duplication, but these are nominally two different concepts. Military of Russia is the intersectional category of Military and Russia. As such, any content of a military topic related to Russia should be categorized in this tree. Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is a specifically defined organization and while it probably encompasses the vast majority of military affairs in Russia, that is not exclusively so. For example, a ceremony which happens today in Moscow in remembrance of the Red Army during WWII should be under Military of Russia somewhere. However, it has nothing to do with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (they didn't exist for another 50 years). Josh (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment Hi Josh! Look up, Russia or the Russian Federation is not synonymous with the Soviet Union. There is already a corresponding category tree for the soviet union. Consequently, there is no use for the current category. --Mosbatho (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep There are military topics related to Russia which are not expressly part of Russia's official armed forces.
Rename Category:Clash of civilizations to Category:Clash of Civilizations as correct capitalization for a proper noun. However, this whole category seems suspect. The images do not appear to be taken from the book. I checked it out at OpenLibrary and it has a few maps that were maybe the inspiration for some of this content, but they are definitely not directly from the book. @LaundryPizza03: do you know anything about this? Josh (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Disagree the Japanese government explain education system here. I cannot find "Junior High School". is it really common ? --eien20 (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Question @Tobias ToMar Maier: Do you mean to say that you would like to categorize both 'actual brassieres' and 'other 'brassiere-styled' clothing' in the same category, or am I misreading your comment? Josh (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Lotje (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
_(10998312184).jpg){kind=link}
_(14595513537).jpg){kind=link}
Speedy delete (C2).
