Open main menu
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Categories.

Otto van Veen.Edit

Why does it state on your web site that Otto van Veen died in Brussels, Belgium, while Belgium did not even exist back than? Brussels was (and is) in the Province of Vlaams Brabant, which was than part of the 17 Provincien der Republiek der Nederlanden. Belgium is not even 200 yrs old today? I'm wondering if you care to correct this mis info?

Regards,

H. van Veen —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:8108:1700:16BC:FA1E:DFFF:FED8:F2F2 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you refered to the infobox on Category:Otto van Veen. Because {{Wikidata infobox}} is generated from wikidata statements, please feel free to modify Otto van Veen (Q785355) on wikidata.--Roy17 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Categories for one file?Edit

I dont know if this has been discussed before. Is it a good practice to create categories, even if it only has one file? This usually happens to people from the 19th century and early 20th century, or sometimes vanished buildings/places too. Only one photo has been found. I find it better to create such categories because 1. the cat can be linked to wikidata but the standalone photo cannot; 2. {{Wikidata infobox}} provides some automatic categorisation; 3. The parent cats look neater with a list of subcats rather than a gallery of images, which is sorted according to random filenames.

If there is concensus to encourage one-file categories for people and locations, maybe it could be added to the policy as a suggestive guideline.--Roy17 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the structure of the category in question. If it is routine for a topic to be categorized into some kind of grouping scheme, for example Category:Aircraft by registration, and therefore the expectation is that each registration will have its own category, it is okay to have single-item categories, as that facilitates users finding it easily and is consistent with the rest of that scheme. On the other hand, where that is not the expectation and the parent single-item category is really just a more generically-named duplicate of the child (particularly where this child is also a category) ten it is not really useful to have it and an upmerge is warranted. It would be good to come up with some way to add something like this to the guidelines. Josh (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Overdiffusion of categoriesEdit

This policy does not seem to cover over-diffusion of categories It has been discusses at the Village Pump, See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/08#Overdiffused categories which went into the subject at length. This is a terrible blight on the project. I have seen many times one image made into a category and then nested in as many as 4 preceding empty cats. Or small villages with 20 images, diffused into as many as 16+ categories. All the images hidden away from sight... Surely this needs to be addressed? Broichmore (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Categories for individual Chinese bookEdit

I would like to propose creating categories in Chinese name for Chinese books. They should be in their orignal Chinese characters (traditional Han for ancient books and Taiwanese and Hongkongese books.), rather than in English. The categories themselves will be in the category category:Chinese book categories to help English speakers to understand the propose of the categories. There are three benefits from doing this.

  1. Easier discovery of the books. Some ancient books are bundled together in one scan file because they were printed together. Therefore, making standalone categories would make them being easier noticed.
  2. Categorize different volumes of large books in a category.
  3. Categorize different versions of a book. China has a long history. A common situation is, many different versions of a single book are created and survived. Creating book categories by name can help users navigating different versions of a book.

--維基小霸王 (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Is everyone agree with this? If so, I will add this rule.@Midleading:

--維基小霸王 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Partial   Oppose: our category naming policy clearly says to use English where possible and if not, it should at the very least be romanized (i.e. use pinyin or something similar instead of hanzi). --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda:I see no benefits of romanization. It will not let those who don't understand Chinese understand the title and it will make it harder for Chinese speakers to understand and looking for the title. So I think the current rule of English title should not be clear-cut and should allow exceptions.--維基小霸王 (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Use {{Category redirect}} if needed, but allowing other scripts will raise the question of where to draw the line or chaos will ensue. Besides, how would you deal with categories like Category:Characters in Journey to the West‎? Category:Characters in 西遊記? That just looks silly and makes it difficult if not impossible to categorise files. Until the wikisoftware allows for multilanguage category titles, exceptions to our language policy should be avoided. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I am only proposing to use it for managing book scan files. It is understood that only the most famous books are known to foreigners. However, ancient Chinese books is so vast that the few known to the Western world seems very tiny. In the case you mentioned, it should be kept in English while pdf files for many different versions of the book will be categorized as 西遊記.
Storing scan files mainly serve the need of Wikisource. The multi language oldwikisource: requires title in original language, and I think this should be a rule commons should follow in some cases.

--維基小霸王 (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

For example,File:四庫禁燬書叢刊 集部 第100冊.pdf contains scans if 3 books banned by Qing Dynasty. If categorise in my way, it will be category:龍眠風雅續集category:梅會詩選category:南州詩畧, which is clear and simple. In your way, they would be category:longmianfengyaxujicategory:meihuishixuancategory:nanzhiushilve, which is almost impossible to understand for both Western and Chinese users. For Chinese users, it would be like turning On the Origin of Species by Chinese sound and pinyin to ang ze ouruizhen aofu sipixizi, which does not allow Chinese to understand, and I guess is also impossible for you to understand.--維基小霸王 (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

We need a standard for transliteration of Chinese (and other languages like Japanese, Korean too). I had bumped into this problem in Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:中國新海軍插圖.
Suppose we want to transliterate 上海城市文化, I can think of the following transliteration:
  1. Shanghaichengshiwenhua
  2. Shanghai chengshi wenhua
  3. Shang hai cheng shi wen hua
  4. Shanghai Chengshi Wenhua
  5. Shang Hai Cheng Shi Wen Hua
That is, we need to consider a few questions:
  1. Should we separate the pinyin?
  2. If #1 is yes, should we divide by words, or by characters?
  3. Should we capitalise each single separate word?
I am no archivist or librarian, but I prefer #3 Shang hai cheng shi wen hua. Yes we should separate them. However, dividing Chinese words can be quite tricky at times, so I'd rather separate the titles by characters. Capitalisation also brings trouble as to whether all should be capitalised, or if only proper nouns should, blah blah blah... so let's not capitalise at all.
This proposed rule would be the last resort. It is overruled by any other widely accepted translated or transliterated names.
Chinese is not legible or typeable to most other users. Latin alphabet is.--Roy17 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Chinese is not legible or typeable to most other users. But pinyin is also not understandable for most other users as well, and it make them even less possible for other language users to try to translate them. If you use google to translate 中國新海軍插圖, you can get the correct translation. [1] But if you translate its pinyin, you can get nothing. [2]

Therefore, using the original characters not only makes it more understandable for Chinese users, but also easier for non-Chinese users to machine translate them.

Since the categories for Chinese books scans themselves will be categorised as such in English, Englsh language user will understand what they are.

Also, I see no point for other language users to type pinyin. If a user can't type Chinese and want to refer to a category, the user can copy and paste the Chinese tile anyway.

Wikimedia Commons is a multi-language project, I think it should not has a strictly-English naming policy for foreign language book category titles. --維基小霸王 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarification about non-Latin alphabetsEdit

The policy on category names currently states: " Latin alphabets are used in original form including diacritics and derived letters, non-Latin alphabets are transcribed to the English Latin script." (Ignoring the fact that this is a run-on sentence…) Am I to understand that this would prevent the creation of, say, Category:Russian letter Б, because the final letter is in a non-Latin script? I assume so, since that category doesn't currently exist but Category:Russian letter B (that's a Latin capital B standing in for the Russian Б) and Category:Russian letter V (a Latin V standing in for the Russian В [Cyrillic В]) do exist. To be frank, I think this is pretty dumb. See also the subcats under Category:Greek letters by letter and Category:Arabic letters (say). These are perhaps more "debatable" instances, since the "English names" of the letters cannot be confused with English letters. But to try to do the same thing with Russian letters is, to say the least, highly problematic. - dcljr (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Categories".