Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07

July 2011Edit

Category:Photographs of women of RussiaEdit

Redundant with existing Category:Women of Russia. Only had one subcat, Category:Photographs of women from Russia in military uniform, which I recatted to the parent category. Contains no files. - dcljr (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

normal cat. for woman by medium. Exist category:Painted portraits of women from Russia, so will be and photo.--Shakko (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Very well. I see more work has been done on these categories, so I'll just drop it. My main objection is that almost every file here (on Commons, I mean) is a photograph, so it makes sense to me to only point out the medium if it differs from that. We really don't want to go around changing 95% of the categories here from "XYZ" to "Photographs of XYZ". - dcljr (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, by default media are photographs of something and other media types are explicitly described. In almost every case the "photographs of xxx" categories are redundant and content should be in the "xxx" category or its sub-categories. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Men by Wilhelm von GloedenEdit

Title is unclear: these are photographs by Wilhelm von Gloeden. Propose renaming to either Category:Men photographed by Wilhelm von Gloeden or (since it appears that not all subjects are actually men) perhaps Category:Males photographed by Wilhelm von Gloeden. Please specify which form you'd prefer in your vote/comment. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe Category:Men and boys photographed by Wilhelm von Gloeden, by analogy with next CFD below. I don't know… - dcljr (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Category:Photographs of men by Wilhelm von Gloeden to match parent-Category:Photographs of men. --Foroa (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
We have the sister category Category:Women and girls by Wilhelm von Gloeden, so I think that it's more correct to change the name of this category to Category:Men and boys by Wilhelm von Gloeden. The word photographs is redundant: von Gloeden was a photograph. --DenghiùComm (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Women and girls by Wilhelm von GloedenEdit

Similar to above section. Title is unclear. Propose Category:Women and girls photographed by Wilhelm von Gloeden. - dcljr (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I can't see the difference (Gloeden was just a photographer, so what else could be "by" him?), but if you feel more at ease this way, let's change it. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


Appears to duplicate parent category Category:Brotherhood of Knights - Dragon Company (Poland) cmadler (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


Parent category:Grenades is actually for hand grenades (mostly them, but also some mortar-fired ordinance and some artillery rounds like File:Municia delostrelecka granat 03a.png - perhaps it does not belong there at all).

Placing all hand grenades in the parent category, and supplementing that category with subcategories for special kinds of grenades is my least favoured choice.
There are more kinds of grenades than those mentioned by NVO, including:
  1. traditional(?) explosive, anti-personnel hand grenades, intended to be thrown at, or in the vicinity of, the target -- intended to kill or disable
  2. flash-bang or stun grenades, intended to be thrown, but also intended to stun, temporarily blind, temporarily deafen, or temporarily stupify hostage-takers, without permanently injuring nearby hostages
  3. smoke grenades, also intended to be thrown, lobbed, or placed by hand, used for signaling, for instance to aircraft, or artillery spotters, informing them where it is safe for a helicopter to land, or where enemies bunkers are, to be bombarded
  4. gas grenades, also intended to be thrown, used as a less lethal way to clear a street of a mob, or to clear a building or bunker
  5. rocket propelled grenades -- fired from shoulder mounted weapons, intended to be used against armored or unarmored vehicles, or possibly structures
  6. 40mm shoulder fired grenades, fired from short single shot grenade launchers mounted under a soldier's rifle barrel, or from special rifles. Munitions include shaped charge and anti-personnel explosive rounds, and specialty rounds, including smoke, gas, flares, starshell, less-lethal bean-bags, and foam or rubber bullets, also paintballs, for marking vehicles
  7. 40mm munitions fired from automatic grenade launchers, which resemble squat heavy machine guns, which fire rounds like the shoulder mounted weapons, but with a more powerful charge
  8. armoured vehicles mount what are called smoke grenade launchers, which are used to generate enough smoke a vehicle is obscured from aircraft or artillery spotters, long enough that it can get away and hide.
  9. I am not familiar with the mortar fired grenades NVO mentions.
  10. Rifle grenades -- I overlooked these.
I believe the best way to organize these different types is into subcategories by how they are projected -- thrown by hand, rocket propelled, with a "bang", or dropped by a vehicle. Alternate organizations include:
  1. by intended target, so all tear gas grenades would be in one category, without regard to whether they were intended to be thrown, fired by the shoulder mounted weapons or the machine gun style weapons. Similarly, shaped charge munitions would be in one category, without regard to whether they were rocket propelled, or fired from a barrel, with a traditional cartridge propellant that went "bang".
  2. by intended use, so all bean-bag, foam or rubber munitions fired from grenade launchers would be in one category, all smoke grenades would be in another category.
I am going to repeat, putting all hand grenades in the parent category, with special grenades in subcategories is my least favoured choice. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "mortar fired" - I meant automatic grenade launchers and similar. NVO (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • There are seven categories like Category:Hand grenades of the United States, which however do not have the parent category Category:Hand grenades by country, but instead the much less useful Category:Grenades by country, even though those seven subcategories are all Category:Grenades by country contains. Most of the hand grenades seem to have been in these categories. Categories like Category:Hand grenades by country of manufacture and Category:Rocket propelled grenades by country of manufacture would probably be more useful. Geo Swan (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Classification by type is fine, but I suspect classification by country of origin is stillborn: there won't be enough properly attributed photos. Even if it's WW2 photo from Bundesarchive we cannot presume it's "made in Germany" simply because it's photographed on German side. Today it's even worse: generic products made all around the world. NVO (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Could you please clarify -- are you agreeing to categorize by method of projection? If so, then Category:Hand grenades could stay at that name. Category:Rifle grenades could stay at that name or be renamed Category:Rifle propelled grenades. Category:Rocket propelled grenades could stay at that name. So, for the vehicle mounted smoke grenades, what would you agree to something like Category:Vehicle mounted smoke grenades? But what would we call the category or categories for the grenades fired from specialty grenade launchers that fire with a "bang"? Category:Automatic grenade launcher munitions might work if we agree to separate categories. But what should we call the other category for the munitions propelled from shoulder fired specialty weapons? I am stumped coming up with a simple short name that doesn`t include rifle propelled grenades and rocket propelled grenades.
      • Perhaps, by type, you meant there should be separate categories for explosive antipersonnel grenades, smoke grenades, gas grenades, beanbag rounds, rubber bullets, foam bullets, flares and starshell rounds. Complicating matters are that shotguns can also fire beanbags, rubber bullets, and foam bullets. They may be able to fire all the other kinds of rounds. Geo Swan (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Also complicating is that while one can see how smoke grenades, gas grenades and starshell are similar to traditional grenades that explode in the vicinity of the target -- we wouldn`t call the beanbag rounds, or similar rounds, grenades, except we are firing them from specialty weapons called grenade launchers. Geo Swan (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Administrative district office buildingsEdit

I suggest to find a common denotation for district administration buildings in the Category:Buildings by function/Category:Government buildings tree. Currently, the subtree starts as Category:Administrative district office buildings on the upper level, then forks into Category:County halls (containing 7 subcategories) and Category:Administrative district office buildings in Germany, which then continues as Category:Landkreis administration buildings. I have no preference about the actual name of this tree - for me, County hall sounds as good as District administration building - but I think it should be the same through all levels. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As there were no protests, all district administration buildings" in Germany have now been recategorized as such. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


Unecessary category split up. A sunset in 2010 looks the same as a sunset in 2009 or in 50 BC. A categorization like sunset over ocean/lake/city etc. - by landscape - possibly makes sense. A categorization of sunsets by location possibly makes sense because people tend to upload their holiday photos here, albeit we got enough sunsets already a categorization by location allows us to give those holiday photos at least some little educational categorization. A categorization by date does not make any sense. --Martin H. (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I am agree on your comment. When I edit some categories about sunsets by year, it was only to follow other year subcategorizations. It seems to be other categorization more appropriate and even useful. I think that such categories must be deleted in ordrer to allow "good" categories. --Bestiasonica (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Similar year categories have been nominated for discussion too and discussion centralied here. Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2011/07/Category:2010_sunsets. --Martin H. (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, won't say, that it's unnecessary. So you could e.g. compare sunsets for special dates, lets say, when a volcano eruption took place. You won't be able to get that comparison, if you don't sort them by time. So i'll propose a keep. --Pflastertreter (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If the category adds substantial information about a singular event could be useful but for generic images (not associated with singular events) I do not see any added value on recording the date. --Bestiasonica (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ob etwas notwendig ist oder eben nicht ist eine durchaus philosophische und persönliche Frage. Es gibt sehr wohl Argumente dafür, dass es interessant ist, Ereignisse und Landschaften zu besonderen Zeitpunkten zu vergleichen. Wird ein Sonnenuntergang beispielsweise am selben Strand zur selben Jahreszeit in verschiedenen Jahren aufgenommen, so kann die Veränderung der Landschaft durchaus von grossem Interesse sein. Es ist daher ziemlich voreingenommen, nur weil man selber den Nutzen einer Kategorie aufgrund seiner eigenen subjektiven und somit immer eingeschränkten Denkweise nicht erkennen kann, also die Kategorie für einen selbst keinen Nutzen hat, zu bestimmen, dass diese subjektive Denkweise objektiv sei und die besagte Kategorie somit auch für andere Menschen keinen Nutzen haben kann und darf. Wen diese Kateogrien nicht interessieren, der ist frei, sie zu ignorieren. Was aber für den einen nutzlos erscheint, mag für den anderen durchaus von grosser Wichtigkeit sein. Die Wikipedia ist für alle Menschen da, daher plädiere ich hier auch für eine sehr grosse Vielfalt von Denkansätzen und für eine grosse Toleranz. So gibt es beispielsweise Menschen, die eben Sonnenuntergänge zu bestimmten Zeitpunkten/Jahren sammeln. Für diese sind diese Kategorien durchaus wertvoll. Soweit die Kategorien nicht objektiv falsch sind oder es sich nicht um Doppelspurigkeiten handelt, plädiere ich daher für die Beibehaltung! DidiWeidmann (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Es sei dann die Frage erlaubt, wo ich dieses Datum implementiere. Sortiere ich einen Ort nach Datum oder sortiere ich ein Phänomen nach Datum? Nehemen wir an es gibt 'Sonnenuntergang Strand A' und 'Sonnenuntergang Strand B' dann setzt dein Argument an, den Strand nach Datum zu sortieren. Aber das Ereignis Sonnenuntergang nach Datum zu sortieren macht keinen Sinn. Deinem Ansatz stimme ich übrigens durchaus zu und habe ihn Eingangs sogar erwähnt. --Martin H. (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ich möchte vorschlagen, diese Diskussion nun zu einem Ende zu bringen und im Ergebnis die Jahreskategorien zu löschen. Die Sonnenuntergänge können nach Orten sortiert werden (dort können dann auch Sonnenuntergänge aus verschiedenen Jahren am selben Ort zusammenfinden) oder nach Landschaft (zum Beispiel Sonnenuntergänge an Seen, Sonnenuntergänge über Schnee). -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ich habe die Kategorie nur angelegt, da es auch schon andere nach Jahren kategorisierte Sonnenuntergänge gab. Wenn alle sonnenuntergänge in der Category:Sunsets ständen, wäre die zudem mit über 300 Bildern auch recht groß.. --Mogelzahn (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:2010 sunsets Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Category:Chocolate_sauce and Category:Chocolate_syrup seem to describe the same. In enwp c. sauce was redired to c. syrup after there were two articles [1]. However, the article en:Chocolate syrup features navigation boxes mentioning "sauces"... If they do not describe the same then could please someone add a header what the difference is? Saibo (Δ) 02:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if I knew of Category:Chocolate_sauce when I created Category:Chocolate_syrup. I was possibly thinking along the lines of chocolate sauce being something you pour on a dessert, and chocolate syrup being more of an ingredient. I'm not really an expert though. I have no objection to the two categories being merged.--Belovedfreak (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but a syrup is not a sauce; the en:wiki describes a syrup, the de:wiki a sauce. I would say; commercial items tend to be syrups. --Foroa (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


Is it ok to move all macro photographs from here to daughter category:Macro photographs, leaving only the stuff relevant to macro technique? But then, what's the point in having category:Macro photographs - there's just too many of them! (see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/05/Category:Close-ups of insects). If it's intended as a showcase of the best photos, it's better be a gallery. ~ NVO (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you want to create a subcategory Category:Macro photography technique and add that to Category:Macro_photography. This will make it easier to sort between that and Category:Macro_photographs
The number of images in Category:Macro_photographs isn't a problem as long as all images in there are actually macro photographs. --  Docu  at 09:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I copied a few images of camera setups to Category:Macro photography technique as suggested. Ideally I would agree with properly separating the technique from the results of the technique, but balk at the over one thousand images that would need moving. If the category had just started I would agree with NVO. -84user (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
After copying several images to the techniques category, my opinion has moved more to NVO's first suggestion of moving the actual photographs to the correct category instead. The reason: I came to the category looking for actual diagrams of the setup, including any on how the depth of field changes and is affected by the setup. Instead I found hundreds of photographs, only by clicking the next 200 am I finding relevant and useful diagrams and images. Commons should treat the user better I feel. Well written notices at the tops of such categories should help persuade people to place images in better categories. 84user (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I can have my bot move the remaining ones to Category:Macro_photographs. --  Docu  at 15:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Female breasts of humansEdit

To be blunt, I've always hated this category name (no offense to the original creator). It is very awkward when compared to most other nudity-related categories. (BTW, same can be said about Category:Female breasts of humans in art and Category:Male breasts of humans, created by the same user.) I'm guessing this was created as a more "anatomical" alternative to Category:Breasts, based on the original parent categories chosen, but that doesn't seem to be how it's currently being used. In fact, the subcats of Category:Breasts are more "anatomical" or "medical" than those of the category under discussion! I propose either chosing a new name than can be used for "anatomical" or "medical" types of images of breasts (not sure what that would be), or simply merging/redirecting the contents to Category:Breasts. - dcljr (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely the correct title would be "Breasts of Female Humans" , ditto "Breasts of Male Humans" - breast don't have a sex independent of owner (grammar) Imgaril (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Imgaril. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. While I agree with Imgaril's grammatical analysis, the suggested renaming doesn't really fix the problem that there's no clear conceptual separation of Category:Breasts and the other category, regardless of what it's called. The more I try to come up with a solution that preserves (/clarifies) the distinction, the more I'm convinced that it can't be preserved. In other words, I recommend that we:
  1. merge Category:Female breasts of humans into Category:Breasts (after which other changes to subcats of the latter category can be considered, as necessary)
  2. rename Category:Female breasts of humans in art to Category:Human breasts in art
  3. rename Category:Male breasts of humans to Category:Breasts (male)
(BTW, note that Category:Female breasts of humans in art is a subcat of Category:Breasts in art, which itself contains "abstract" or "non-realistic" depictions of "breasts"; this is why #2 is a rename and not simply a merge into Category:Breasts in art.)
Does anyone object to this course of action? - dcljr (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes I do object. Breasts are not anatomic parts that are exclusive to women (even if we instinctively think of women first when we see this world). And Commons (+ Wikipedia) have that mission to stand by the correct truth/information. Moreover your argument of the wrong categorization is not valid : it just means the categorization is uncorrect ! Therefore there's no reason to reproduce this common mistake that lead to think only women have breasts. The best category tree should be :
  1. rename Category:Female breasts of humans into Category:Breasts of female humans (or Category:Human female breasts ? or Category:Female human breasts ? We just have to chose the best one)
  2. rename Category:Male breasts of humans to Category:Breasts of male humans
  3. rename Category:Female breasts of humans in art into Category:Breasts of female humans in art and move it into Category:Breasts of female humans (and maybe in Category:Breasts of humans in art to be created)
We have to be correct and logical. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. But does your argument extend to nipples and areolas, along with all the similarly named (sub)cats (e.g., Category:Inverted nipple, Category:Breast cancer, etc.)? And what about the huge number of other anatomical categories that could apply to humans and non-humans (especially other mammals)? Would you recommend creating a "human" category (when it doesn't already exist) for every single such category (Category:Vulva, Category:Penis, Category:Clitoris, Category:Testicles, Category:Buttocks, Category:Legs, Category:Feet, Category:Toes, Category:Hands, Category:Fingers, Category:Nails, etc.)? If yes, that's fine: I just want to be clear what your position is. - dcljr (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's just concentrate on the naming of the "human" categories (under Category:Breasts). Since there are subcats that apply to all animals (including humans) having "breasts", some that apply to humans (male and female) but not (?) other animals, and some that apply to female humans and not male humans, it seems to me that we need a "human" subcat of Category:Breasts, and then the "female" and "male" subcats under that. In other words:

  • Category:Breasts
    • Category:Breasts of humans or Category:Human breasts
      • Category:Breasts of human females or Category:Breasts of female humans or Category:Human female breasts or Category:Female human breasts
      • Category:Breasts of human males or Category:Breasts of male humans or Category:Human male breasts or Category:Male human breasts

Although the first option in each case does have the nice property that each builds on the parent category's name in a "logical" way that would help with searching and when using tools like HotCat, I actually don't like the first options (in all cases) because (1) they're slightly more wordy, and (2) I prefer using "female" as an adjective rather than a noun (as an aside, see the comments at Category talk:Females). The second options in each of the last two cases were suggested above; does everyone (commenting here) still agree with those? And what about the second case (2nd bullet point)? I say the second option. What say others? And should any of the other options be redirects (which help when using HotCat)? - dcljr (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the debate was about the gender. I agree that we could drop the "human" and only keep "Male breasts" and "Female breasts". --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that an anonymous IP user has removed the CFD tag from this category. I haven't been following, but that seems rather unorthodox. On the other hand, this has gone over 10 months without comment, so I leave it to someone who was working on this to decide what best to do. - Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Spanish used, policy is to use english for category names. Better: category:Ministry of the Environment (Peru). ErickAgain 10:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


Spanish used for category name, policy is to use English for category names. Better: Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Peru). ErickAgain 10:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


Move to "St. Andrews crosses (BDSM)" Handcuffed (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As can be seen in Category:Saint Andrew, Commons avoids abbreviations, so better use Saint Andrew's crosses (BDSM). --Foroa (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Grube Fortuna (Wetzlar)Edit

This Category should be renamed to Category:Grube Fortuna (Solms) because the mine is situated near the city of Solms. --~ Emha (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree. When I created the category, the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia was just called "Grube Wetzlar", and the introduction of the article said that the mine was close to Wetzlar, which was rather rough. Recently the introduction has been corrected and the the article has been renamed in the same way as suggested for the category here. The names should match. --Tetris L (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Possibly redundant, see Category:Borough of North Lincolnshire - it's not clear to me what this category is intended to cover? Also seems to have been used without using subcats. I think this category should be deleted, and the parent populated with geographically relevent categories Imgaril (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Agreed, but before it can be deleted there's an awful lot of files need moving. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but this may have been created as part of the upload, so do they all move to Borough of North Lincolnshire, or subcategories such as Towns and villages in Lincolnshire? There are many other examples of this, such as the unitary authorities that make up West Youkshire, where they have been uploaded as Kirlees, Calderdale, Leeds, Bradford or Wakefield, but not as West Yorkshire.
  • Comment Ah, the problems created by the Geograph uploads! Bless them! At least we now have the images on Commons (and still more to come, I think), giving us probably the best coverage of any country, so it's not all bad. I'm afraid I think we'll probably have to just grin and bear it for a while. The images under North Lincolnshire need sorting through. Some of them won't even be in "North Lincolnshire" at all. It's a massive task, and is likely to take months, if not years (the "Humber Estuary" subcategory is a massive problem in itself). They really need moving to the appropriate civil parish (or unparished area, urban town, whatever you want to call Scunthorpe!), and that then needs linking to "Borough of North Lincolnshire". I pop in every so often and do a few, but most of my time is taken up with helping sort Greater Manchester. I shouldn't worry too much about it, as at least one is a subcategory of the other, so even though it's not very tidy at the moment, they're all in one place for anyone prepared to wade through. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment They should be merged, but I'd suggest keeping Category:North_Lincolnshire instead. It's the better-used category, it matches the name in Wikipedia, and it's easier to use. There isn't any particular naming convention for other districts/boroughs in Commons: some include "district" or "borough" in their names and some don't. ghouston (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Last modified on 8 March 2014, at 18:46