In discussion with Cobatfor (talk·contribs) it became clear there is desire for a category which can display all media of an aircraft type without having to wade through sub-categories which may have only a few images each. This is particularly true with aircraft registrations as they can often have only one or two images for a particular aircraft, but their creation and structure is established practice for aircraft. Having a flat list category with all media of the aircraft regardless of categorization offers a possible solution. Leaving them in the parent category does not work because it is a COM:OVERCAT violation and a well meaning soul will come by and fix that, sorting them back into their sub-cats (or at least removing the extra listing). Does a flat list category work? If we use it, what should it be named? Category:A-4A Skyhawk (flat list) has been created as an example/test of this approach, name and sorting can be refined. Josh (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
It just came to my mind that there could also just be a category "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (flat list)", as every aircraft only has one registration number. The exception in all U.S. Navy aircaft are (as far as I know) only a few AV-8B Harriers which received a new BuNo after a modernization. Cobatfor (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Cobatfor: Your responses above were only on my talk page, but looked like they belonged here, so I copied them over. I wanted to keep it limited for the example category, so that is why I stuck to 'A-4A' instead of the whole 'A-4' category. Of course, you are correct, this could be done at whatever level makes sense for the number of media involved. Josh (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Themightyquill: Yeah, I was at a loss for the right words, and as I said, some other wording may be more appropriate. As for a gallery, it does not serve the purpose really, as they are for showing a curated selection of images, not all images of a subject. Josh (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
I guess "(all images)" would be more appropriate in terms of wording. I'm not saying I think this is a good idea though. I certainly wouldn't want to see it for all types of planes. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Cobatfor: Do you have any objection to Themightquill's suggestion? If not, I suggest this be closed with consensus to permit an (all images) index category when appropriate, but to use this practice sparingly. Josh (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Cheers and thank you! I'm not sure that I plan on doing anything in particular, but in cases where you think a grouping of all images is appropriate, you can create say, Category:Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (all images) and add any image depicting an A-4 to that category. Leave them in their existing categorized structure (by registration, etc.). Does this work to meet your concerns? `Josh (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well, I hope I understand that proposal. I would not think that Category:Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (all images) would be appropriate, as then we have hundereds of images in one category. For example, the U.S. Navy bot-uploads filled the categories of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with thousands of photos. I still don't understand, why aircraft registration categories cannot be exempted from the redundancy rule, as it is seldom the case that you have more than one photo of an aircraft.Cobatfor (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I thought that is what you were suggesting when you said "It just came to my mind that there could also just be a category "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (flat list)"..." It sounds like we are on the verge of making the perfect the enemy of the good here. You can say it is an exemption all you like but that still won't stop well-meaning editors from undoing your work trying to fix what would commonly be seen as an overcat violation, unaware of the special case, unless you are going to add special headers to all of the thousands upon thousands of affected categories to explain the situation, which I don't think is a workable or good idea. Special exemptions complicate everyone's work as it is one more thing to trip over in the normal course of editing. Josh (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well, I hope, I got that right (as a non-English-native speaker): You propose to put all (for example) Douglas A-4 Skyhawk photos in one mega-category and piecemeal the category on the other hand into 2960 single BuNo categories? I still think either is not useful. One category is too big, the other is too small. If you think that you have to press every aircaft photo into a zillions of single registration categories, that may be then. I would think it is more of a task to categorize the USN categories that were blown up with thousands of photos by bot-uploads. Automatic categorization led to the state that we have now, that thousands of photos ate in categories just because the word is somewhere in the description. As to the aircraft registration issue, if I got your idea right, I sadly cannot support it. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Cobatfor: Sorry, you lost me. I'm not making a proposal to create any particular category. The one I used as an example was one you said would be one you might want. But if now you don't want it, forget I mentioned it. As for an aircraft registration issue, I have no idea what issue you are referring to or what it is you are not supporting, since I don't see anyone suggesting changing the rules about aircraft registrations. Could you please clarify, 1) Would being able to use a category such as Category:A-4A Skyhawk (all images) address your concerns? 2) If not, do you have an alternate proposal to address the problems you have with existing practices? Josh (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
stale discussion. I haven't read all this long discussion. But as user:Themightyquill says category:Flat categories are for categories not for "all images". Galleries should do the job when you want to see all images of Foo aircraft. And content of gallery is much more stabile (and trackable) than files in a category--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
This category name implies that it's about an area of France, but it is categorized under statues. It contains one subcat, Category:Unidentified locations in Northern France, and some files showing statues. The subcat would fit in a category with this name, but the files should be in more-specific categories. Proposed resolution:
Remove files from this cat.
Recategorize the contents of the subcat, possibly creating a new category for them called "Unidentified locations in France by region".
Keep. Similarly to Southern France, an useful global/maintenance category when one feels uncertain or lazy. There is an important divide between North and South in France, geographically and culturally, so these categories are relevant. The frontier is traditonally considered to be the Loire. Please refer to Southern France on Wikipedia. Nothing on Northern France though, I suppose it's because the North is less popular than the sunny South ;) - Olybrius (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
"Useful when one feels uncertain or lazy" is not a reason to keep categories. Wikipedia may have an article on Southern France, but they don't categorize things under it. If we keep these categories, are we expected to fully populate them? Between administrative regions and departments, not to mention the areas under Category:Super-regional entities of France, I think we have enough categories for areas of France. If there is nothing that relates to the area as a whole (as opposed to relating separately to its subdivisions), it's not meaningful to have the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sorry, but even with a "supposed" adjective in the title, this category is totally out of the scope of Commons. How are we to recognise a supposed chemtrail? Supposed by whom, with what kind of evidence? These are just contrails. Commons is not the place to have people build up their conspiracy theories. Ariadacapo (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I (as creator of the category) understand you totally. So, my intention is to collect - or better said - to separate images with ordinary (in common sense of a meaning) contrails, which usually last for about 20 seconds or something, and extraordinary contrails, which last for hours and which in some way essentially differ from ordinary ones. Maybe it's just the name of the category that should be more adequate, for example: Long-lasting contrails ... that means some name, that would make a distinction, as we know for example cloud types. --Janezdrilc (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
There's nothing extraordinary about longer-lasting contrails. Their persistence depends on many atmospheric factors, so there's nothing inherently special about them do merit extra categorization (see en:Contrail). And even if we did this, which time limit would you set for "ordinary" ones, why exactly such limit and how would you reliably distinguish "extraordinary" contrails from a photo? — YerpoEh?07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's reasonable to have Category:Chemtrail conspiracy theory, but it's not reasonable to categorize all contrails a second time according to what some people think is a conspiracy. Janezdrilc, even if we accepted your separate definition (and to be clear, I don't think it's useful), there's no reasonable way to categorize a photo of a contrail by how long it lasted. We certainly wouldn't want an hour of video footage of a contrail either. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is not a generally accepted definition of 'ordinary' vs. 'extraordinary' contrails, so it is not reasonable for us to categorize on that basis. It is reasonable to categorize 'chemtrails' seperately from 'contrails' in cases where it there is evidence to support that it is not a mere aerodynamic/atmospheric effect of a passing plane, but actually a deposited trail of some sort of chemical, such as Category:Aerial application. However, contrail duration is not sufficient evidence of this. In any case, unless there is some sort of visual distinction between short and long-lasting contrails, it is not reasonable to categorize photos by duration. If we do have video of contrails, then I suppose caterizing media by duration would be fine, but not under the guise of being 'chemtrails'. Simply categorize by what we know (duration), and leave the speculation to the viewer. This category should be removed and redirected to Category:Contrails in Slovenia. Josh (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
It seems some people don't like this category. It was meant as a solution to find a compromise between those who agreed there should be a flat category listing all ships by name, but weren't sure how to square that with Category:Ships by name by type. Some wanted the latter deleted completely. Some wanted it as a parallel category to Category:Ships by name. Some, apparently, wanted to ignore COM:OVERCAT and include ships both in the flat list and in the sub-categories. I think Category:Ships by name (flat list) solves this whole debate nicely, and allows the categories to nest naturally. I'd be happy to hear of other potential solutions. Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think a category containing each named ship individually is needed. If you know a ship's name but nothing else about it, this category lets you look for it by name. If you want an image of a ship with a certain name, but it doesn't matter which one, you can find one in this category. Well, at least it would if the sorting were worked out better. I don't really care what the name of the category is, if that's the issue, but I think a category should exist with this content. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I acknowledge that it might be the only "by name (flat list)" category, but there also aren't a lot of "by name" categories which are actually flat. (Yes, there are some and they require ongoing maintenance to keep them flat, and/or weird workarounds like Category:People categories by name). Category:Ships by name invites sub-categorization, whether you want it or not. In most all other category trees Category:X by Y by Z is a subcategory of Category:X by Y and usually by Category:X by Z. The first few examples that came up in a search, just looking at those involving "name" - it's even more common in other intersections:
Conversely, there's no indication that most or all sub-categories that end with "by name" are flat-categories. From my perspective, if you want a flat category to remain flat without having to fight for consensus whenever anyone wants to sub-categorize, add "(flat list)" to the category name. No more need for debate and maintenance, and no harm done. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I note we're still active at the Village Pump on this question: discussion September 18.
Hopefully we can keep this simple. In essence I agree with Stunteltje on this topic.
I think we may all agree that the simplest most direct method is the best way. The directory tree should be as flat as possible. Ideally all main cats should lie directly under Ships. A main cat should be as short and as simple a name as possible, that why I prefer "Ships by name" to "Ships by name ((flat list)". "Ships by type" should be directly under "Ships", as a parallel category to Category:Ships by name. "Ships by name has instructions at the top of it telling you that it is a place for ship name categories only. Calling it "Ships by name ((flat list)" does not resolve dumping other stuff in there. Adding "(flat list)" to the category name, doesn't take the place of the instructions. All cats invite sub-categorization, especially for people who don't read instructions. Your right every cat needs to be curated, because part timers continually dump stuff where it shouldn't be, either through ignorance, laziness or more likely confusion; and confusion come about through over nesting, and over long cat names.
When Commons was born a directory tree was created by people interested in "filing" as a subject and by people interested in "boats and barges" as opposed to ships. That greatly influenced subsequent development. The "ship" community" has a very different view on a whole raft of detail. I.E. ships are launched, barges and boats are built, is just one example. At the start it was not envisaged, how big the project would become, even shipping as a subject is larger than we ever dreamt. The cat structure was designed accordingly, and designed for people that did not know how to interrogate a database using sophisticated search queries.
Consequently we have choked many branches within commons with over nesting of cats and over diffusion of images. The latter has been discussed recently elsewhere and over diffusion by date was found to be not popular by consensus. Simply, because, even when looking at 200 files in once place it's obvious what dates belong to what image, and filing by year tends to hide files away, and make them inaccessible. Over-catting leads to an unacceptable maintenance overhead.
What is clear to me, is that if you want to find a ship, people use Wikipedia as a map. It's in Wikipedia that ship types and ship names are identified, that means in effect that all our type cats are effectively redundant. An enquirer then come to commons and looks for ships by name, that is if you don't know how to use deepcat or Petscan. Even if you want images tied to a certain year (and your eye is not enough) then it's best to use petscan or type in a specific year as a search keyword to narrow the results. However date finding is not too clever in Commons, as the largest number of errors here are the dates attached to images, far greater than spelling errors.
Commons doesn't lend itself to disambiguation as efficiently and clearly as Wikipedia. We should be geared towards not filing as an end in itself, but as a repository of images for our major client, exemplified by Wikipedia. COM:OVERCAT has nothing to do with putting ships in both the flat list and in sub-categories (I'm presuming you meant ships by type) that's perfectly acceptable, though a waste of time IMO.
Autofun6 has a point, but of course we're not supposed to raise a cat for a single image, but what we can do, is put an image in cats like "Ships named Neptune" or similar. All this work just for people who cant do basic search! It's not all wasted effort though as many images have insufficient text descriptions that on occasion don't include the name of the ship, and / or miss out on the term ship, and call the vessel what it is, yacht, barge, steamer. But that of course takes me back to the inherent flaws that still exist, through creation of the tree by bargemen as opposed to ship boys.
Don't get me wrong, this is a living organism that will perpetually change (and more importantly is not broken), I just pray that we keep it simple and solve it by taking out unnecessary levels and cats, rather than adding new ones. Remember those four cats doing the same job: "Categories by ship name", "Ships by type"; "Ships by function"! and "Ships by name by type" as an example. "Ships by name (flat list)" is just another needless, and a log on the fire. Respectfully. Broichmore (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Category:Ships of the United Kingdom does that already, and there are already several sub-cats covering that too. Despite all that you've said, and not read, you still have no good reason for your modifications to "Ships by name", please change it back to how it was. Dump those cats you didn't like (that were in it, polluting it, to your annoyance) into Category:Ship names. Again, our problem is over nesting and adding cats and levels to that is not helping that. Not happy with one cat and an extra level you now want to double it, with another. Regards - Broichmore (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
This an important issue, and deserves much thought. I'm going to be doing intensive travelling over the next two weeks, so I beg you to put this on hold. I will think about it over the period and come back with a way forward, that hopefully you will find agreeable. Key points have to be minimal nesting of categories, and preserving ships from the the over categorisation and diffusion that is such a blight on other projects. While there are unlimited numbers of ship images there are relatively few as a rule per ship. You may have already solved the issue, notice that in Category:Ships by name you have already put in the "header", a set of "instructions required" to keep it a "flat list", perhaps we just need to point out in there, that images that have no home I.E. "unidentified ships" or are single ship images should be in "Ships named after Foo" or better still "ships named Foo"? In the end we may all have to put up with a certain amount of image dumping into and consequent curation of major cats such as this. -Broichmore (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
As of today things look OK to me. First we have Category:Ships, inside it "Ship Names" and "Ships by name", then inside "Ship names" are various name titles and again "Ships by name". There is no need for adding another tier of "Ships by name (flat list)". the current contents of which should be returned to "Ships by name". "Ships by name" is the only category in "Ships" of any real importance. As such it deserves its name to be as short as possible. It is the only mandatory category where a ship folder should reside. There are many other categories in "Ships" that an individual ship can belong to. These other categories are problematic. They will never be complete. Are difficult to maintain (curate). Some are poorly defined. They are redundant in large part by Wikipedia being effectively an index of shipping titles (a map of Commons ship content) and Commons being an extended library shelf (databank). Please return the contents of "Ships by name (flat list)" to where it belongs "Ships by name". Thank you --Broichmore (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Themightyquill: When "Ships" was first conceived, a category for names was made, called "Ships names". It was later felt that a flat list was required and so "Ships by name" was created. The latters only fault was a lack of prescriptive instruction for its content in its header, which you and others finally fixed. Hence there is no need for lengthening its name into "Ships by name (flat list)". Lengthening its title only creates problems with slow internet connections. Tell me, afresh, at this moment in time, given the amendments and improvements (you and others sponsored) to the page "Ships by name" header (which made it into a so called flat list), why it should it be changed to "Ships by name (flat list)". How is that an improvement. What does it solve? Seeing as "Ship names" now holds the sub cats YOU did not want there. I'm not the only person not to see the point in this change. Stunteltje, Huntster, Rmhermen, have all agreed at some point that there is no need for it. Again please reinstall its contents. Broichmore (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Just so we're clear, please correct me if this is not an accurate comparison of the two systems that are being proposed.
The old system stopped working once "Ships by name" and the subcategories of "Ships by name by type" had the same content, so a textbook case of overcategorisation ensued. In terms of naming there is may not be need an apparent need to have the new "(flat list)" disambiguation, but it makes it clear that "Ships by name" should no longer be used for individual ship categories. Category:Ships by name by type, however, is a valid subcategory for "Ships by name" and should not have been removed from its parent at all. TMQ's system as listed above provides a well-structured category tree that goes along with the requirements of our category guideline, and also follows a logical taxonomy. De728631 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Its not a case of over over-categorisation. This category solves the continual problem of ship identification, where names are re-used multiple times, even in the same year, its necessary to have an (overview) register of ALL ships names.
"Ships by name by type" is completely different, it is not an overview cat of all ships names.
Ships very often change their identity / type over time. Example sidewheel steamers were often converted into barges in their late working life. Liners into troop transports or hospital ships. Sailing Ships converted into into paddle steamers. Fishing boats into gunboats. Gunboats into yachts and launches. Four masts to three masts. There are also many grey areas in ship types, where a ship can fall into two or more types. Example Sailing Yachts and steam yachts. Ships can crossover into several descriptions barques, schooners, as can Clippers.
Trust this explains the need for "Ships by name". If anything this is the only mandatory cat for a ship. Wikipedia content acts as an index that makes many shipping cats redundant; including "Ships by name by type".
Aircraft are a completely different life form, and are not directly comparable. They are made in batches or in series, by type and are largely therefore anonymous. They are very often not bespoke made, or unique, or Launched. They are seldom reported on or written about as individuals. Therefore "by type" is a valid form of categorisation. Anyway I'm not an expert on Aircraft and would not presume to weigh into that area and would leave it, to its own experts.Broichmore (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is nothing wrong with the cataloging of the Edisa at the moment. Except that it could go into even more cats, for example different ship owner names. If it were converted at anytime then it wouldn't change its category it would have an additional one added for it new role. Ships lives are like your CV, everytime your job changes so does your role, your job title, your salary, your employer. If you were a miner in 1959, and a broker in 1969. you would appear in those two cats. I don't care how many cats a ship appears in, its virtually unlimited. The more cats are created the more curational overhead exists. The only essential cat is "Ships by name". Broichmore (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
From COM:OVERCAT: Don't place an item into a category and its parent. For example, a black and white photo of the Eiffel Tower should be placed in Black and white photographs of the Eiffel Tower. It should not be placed in both that category and the Paris category at the same time.
Overcategorisation occurs whenever a category and its subcategory are placed in the same parent category (see the example scheme for overcategorised files). This was the case for "Ships by name by type" which is why these discussions where started in the first place. This has nothing to do with identifying ship names or a possible reuse of names, but it is about the structure and hierarchy of the category tree. The Commons community has approved the principle of "Don't place an item into a category and its parent", so this was in fact a problem. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ships by name and "Ships by name by type" are and should be at the same level. It's inevitable that every ship will appear in multiple categories, there's no way to avoid it. Example a Royal Navy tanker and depot ship, could appear in more than four cats, especially if at some stage sold to (and converted by) a commonwealth navy. None of these "sub categories" will ever be truly complete, the curation overhead is immense. However "Ships by name" is the only mandatory cat for a ship to be in, regardless of its type. Ships differs from other areas in Commons in that it is highly bespoke. Cat-a-lot is almost useless here. Every file has to be opened before it can be individually categorized. Ships are by their nature as unique as human beings. I have actually said before now that categories outside of "Ships by name", are largely if not totally redundant. Wikipedia acts as an index for ships and their classes whether we like it or not.
Themightyquill, you picked an odd example (Category:Edisa (ship, 1959)) as that ship only sailed as Edisa from 1972-1974 and sank in 1978. It was called Disa for 13 years and Calypso Trader for 4 years. Even stranger that category is sorting under the number 5 instead of alphabetically in the General cargo ships and ships (flat list) categories and I can't see why. Rmhermen (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I just now added an image to the Edisa cat, that was lost in the ether. The order of appearance is number 5 because the database has been told to file and sort under IMO number. That's obviously wrong. This is a good example where either a mistake has been made or someone with insufficient experience of "Ships" has meddled. This is not a place to make decisions about, without extensive hands on experience. -Broichmore (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
We're drifting here. We seem to have started talking about the whole structure of "ships", example Category:Ships by name by type is the same thing as Category:Categories by ship name one of these is pointless. I would delete the second. I alluded to similar flaws before now, and there are many here. What we are defending right now is the sanctity of the this particular category. At this moment in time, given the amendments and improvements to the page header of "Ships by name" (which made it into a so called flat list), I see no reason why it should it be changed to "Ships by name (flat list)". The new name is too long for comprehension and or useability where the internet is slow, and needs to be reverted. Its change for the sake of change; and unwanted by the ship community. The longer the title here, the more niche, the subject. We don't really want to be saddled with a long title for a basal and popular cat such as this. -Broichmore (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
That's besides the point, a peripheral issue. The main issue here, which you doggedly refuse to address is 51,619 instances of folders being moved to a place no-one in the shipping community wants. You obviously want to repeat this in Category:Categories by name (flat list), where you can do the same to another 96 categories. Your "original" invention of "Flat List", presumably derived from the term "Flat-file databases" is un-wanted. I'm sorry Quill, but you have given no clear explanation of why this change is required, and it needs to be reverted. As you so aptly put it "this is not how Commons works". Regards. -Broichmore (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Broichmore: Even if I believed your incredibly strong feelings on this issue represent the entire "shipping community" (unless it's a pretty small community), Commons categorization does not exist exclusively for people "in the shipping community". It follows a set of standard logically organized structures so that everyone can find the image they are looking for and properly categorize the image they upload. The side-by-side table above demonstrates exactly why this is needed. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Themightyquill: Quill, you have been told by active members of the shipping community (all of whom are established creative editors), and who have been here in these discussions, to desist and revert. Commons categorization procedures are completely intact in both "Ships", and this matter and will continue to be so provided you revert. Shipping already adhered to the established procedures, before you happened upon it. It is your initial action, and subsequent prevarications that are the deviation/s to the Commons categorization procedures. Everyone "else" who has visited, has professed no specific agreement to the move, they have only asked for simplistic clarifications demanding monosyllabic answers, and had no further comment to make; something unheard of in the shipping community, I might add. This change, which you did not propose but yet, have unilaterally actioned, is a deviation to the Commons categorization procedures. Please revert it. -Broichmore (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not ignoring you, I just disagree. I've made my case, and I don't feel you've responded to my argument. I recognize that you don't like my proposed change so you can stop telling me that over and over, but I don't feel you've presented a valid reason to oppose it, or a valid reason to keep the illogical old system. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I can see you disagree, with so many on this issue. I have given full responses to your arguments; both specific and non-sequitur. I even described to you the failings within "Ships". The changes to the illogical system have not been opposed, indeed I suggested further improvements. The valid reason for not changing the name of this category was given in detail several times. Its' longer than it needs to be. The extended term "flat line" is both your own invention, it's needed, and unwanted. The deficiencies within the cat were resolved by putting directions into the header, some of which you put there yourself. All that's opposed here is the renaming of the category, and your moving away of its content. -Broichmore (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Themightyquill: See previous post. Quill, Its about time that you changed back this category to its original state. Again you have studiedly ignored what I and others have said to you. You've failed to justify your actions here. Ignoring consensus in such an obvious way and with such artifice is not good form. Broichmore (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not ignoring you, and I again request that you stop accusing me of acting in bad faith. I created this discussion specifically in response to your concerns. I don't believe consensus has been reached. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Themightyquill: What you are ignoring is what has been said to you, time and again by self and others (who are established "ship editors". The consensus is that this change is unnecessary. I implore you to read afresh this and the other relevant strings and you will see that is the case. -Broichmore (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Again, I'm not ignoring you - I simply disagree with you. I disagree with your argument. I disagree that you've acknowledged any of the flaws in your design. I disagree with your conclusion that consensus has been reached. I disagree with the idea that your self-created designation as "established ship editors" has any special weight here, since the discussion is not about some technical detail of ship building, but about commons categorization structure. Since you're not adding anything new to this discussion, however, I'm considering ignoring you in the future. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Themightyquill: Yes the designation "established ship editors" is irrelevant here. I have designed nothing. You persist in twisting whats been said. However you can disagree, but when you fail as an Administrator to be objective in your judgements, and consistently ignore what been said to you, and fail in turn to justify your actions, and resort to gamesmanship to further your aims, then you show yourself to be unworthy of the status of Adminship. You should resign and surrender your powers, that you may have acquired with a free bag of skittles at the start of the project. Now that's a new topic. When an admin ignores the policy they are supposed to be using and defending; thats a problem. Please revert what you have done to the Category, which, again, has been requested of you by consensus of other editors. I sincerely hope you come to your senses here. Regards -Broichmore (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Category:Ships by name (flat list) is the correct way to name this category. It is an index category of all ship categories which specify the ship's name. Category:Ships by name can be subcategorized, and items in it thus need to be removed from Category:Ships by name to be added to sub-categories. Adding them to Category:Ships by name (flat list) removes OVERCAT problems. The system listed by Themightyquill (talk·contribs) under TMQ System is the best of the proposals yet put forward. Category:Categories by ship name is a mess, it contains wholly seperate types of content that deserve their own properly named categories (probably warrants its own CfD in the future). The TMQ system is simple, straight-forward, compliant with Commons guidelines, and consistent with naming and structure for other category trees. Josh (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have come across this discussion several times and am really struggling to understand it, just as I am struggling to understand what the heck to do with individual ship images. But I can't see why we need a category called "ships by name" and a category called "ships by name (flat list)", I don't even know what a flat list is or how it is supposed to differ from the "ships by name" category, and when I look at either of these categories they look the same. Ship categorization on Commons just seems like a horrible mess and it seems to me that we need to go back to basics and work out a structure for the categories that is logical, consistent and intuitive. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Gatoclass: No individual ship images should go in any of these categories. "by name" categories are for categories only. I think we can all agree that category structure is a mess, and the discussion about best how to solve it. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I had a think about this after posting about it last night, and it looks to me as though there is nothing of importance in the "Ships by name" category anyhow, it appears to only exist now as a parent category of "Ships by name by type" - and I'm not sure why we even need a "Ships by name by type" category. So it seems to me that the most logical thing to do would be to either eliminate the "Ships by name by type" category altogether, or else move it to a category on the same level as "Ships by name". Either way, we could then get rid of the "Ships by name (flat list)" category that I and I'm sure many others find confusing, and put everything back in the "Ships by name" category where they originally were. It also bothers me that the "Ships by name (flat list)" category is anomalous to all the other "x by name" categories, because that too is bound to create confusion. So they are my first thoughts on the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the response TMQ, it has helped clarify your position for me. Unfortunately I'm a little busy right now and may not be able to return to this discussion for a few days, but will do so as soon as I can. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC).Reply
When are we going to change back this category to an unhidden one of Ships by name, with this flat list bs dropped. A change made against consensus, from an individual that needs to be censured. Broichmore (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I notice this is still outstanding, consensus is still ignored, this whole plan needs be reversed by a different Administrator other than the one who has abused his powers here. --Broichmore (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
We also have the Category:Ships with the same name to consider, which I would split into 'Common ship names' and 'Uncommon ship names' saving a layer for the latter. A flat category then seems superfluous. My idea would be:
Guido den Broeder Please, please don't make life complicated by bringing Category:Ships with the same name into this conversation. Ships with the same name was specifically created as a maintenance category, it's where images are very often parked before proper categorisation. The names of ships in it, may not match exactly; as it often features just the dominant word in a ship's title (I.E. City of Glasgow) or contains ships that have at some point carried the name.
It was created because of the confusion caused by, and maintenance problems associated with, the many trophy categories such as Category:Ships named after places etc. and their subs like Ships named after the Mersey etc. Too many similar categories muddy the waters.
Category:Ships with the same name is not meant for public use, as such, it's a sieve tool, meant to catch images of unidentified ships and present them in a basket for easy comparison against known others.
By its very nature it's not a candidate for being made hidden either. Just the same as Ships by name should not be a hidden category. Reason being, both depend on being universally up to date and used, to be effective, or available to be used when systematically searching against a particular word.
"Category:Ships by name" is critical to the project for search purposes. An ongoing problem on this project is that we insist on ignoring how Wikipedia names ships (or as how several museums do and that includes possibly the biggest and most influential; the NMM, in Greenwich London). No, we persist in not including the launch date in a name but a build date. A ship is only launched once; but build can be any one of multiple choices.
Lastly you say It contains quite a few ship names that occur only once, and this is bound to grow if those names are left without a parent category. Yes. exactly, that's the exact reason, why it was created, to contain every ship name we have, without hiding them away in parent categories. Meanwhile an army of befuddled contributors are busily hiding all our images away from use in places like Category:1912 in Wellington. We do not wish to hide away files in ships! --Broichmore (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Guido den Broeder, okay, that makes a bit more sense, but the solution should be to very clearly warn against creation of single-entity subcategories in Category:Ships with the same name, rather than splitting everything into two completely arbitrary and highly subjective categories. That simply won't work. Who is to decide what is common and what isn't? — Huntster (t@c)13:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
I still don't see how that solves any of our issues here. Rather, it simply adds confusion, obscuration, creates two new problems. — Huntster (t@c)16:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Which would only exacerbate the current problem, and I can only see us right back where we are now if that split were to occur. — Huntster (t@c)13:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
HuntsterShips with the same name consists of ships that have been categorised (no ship's files are categorized where there is only one image), and single images lying loose in the basket for identification. That's the whole point of having them in a basket where they can be compared "like for like".
Single images of ships can be loose under Ships by name who cares? Not doing any harm. Why is it an issue? It's easier to put a blind eye to them. We will always have single solo images and we will always have more images than we have manpower to deal with. In reality single images wash around in places like Merchant ships of the United States or Sailing ships or Kayaks waiting for someone to find them and organize them via Ships with the same name. I's just something we have to come to terms with and accept.
In a perfect world, they shouldn't be "in ships by name" I agree, they could go into their individual Ships with the same name folders which would be useful.
If someone took the trouble in the first place to put them in Ships by name then they should have put them in at the level of steamships or Sailing ships etc. or better any appropriate or obvious Ships with the same name folder.
by the way Images of ships is a redirect to Ships, and the better General views of watercraft is also a redirect?
No action taken: This discussion has been around for over two years, and I don't see any consensus to change the system TMQ implemented. At the end of the day, this is an organizational category for a folksomony, and vitriol about the specifics is not going to further Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This country is no longer officially known as Swaziland, its official title in English is the Kingdom of Eswatini. Enwiki has changed the article name and several category names to reflect this. This category and subs should be changed to reflect the country's correct name. Josh (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Unless these are specific categories for that form of government, within a category like "Government of Eswatini" and for including subcategories for kings or royal families, or if this is related to the precolonial history (or in the history of colonial South Africa) where distinctions of different entities (in present-day Eswatini, possibly also covering areas outside of it) may be needed. verdy_p (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Ruthven: Could you help with this? Please note the exceptions included in the wikipedia discussion that Crouch, Swale has listed above. Perhaps it would be best to post a full list of the potentially affected categories here first, and then if there are problems we can spot them more easily? I'm not sure what's best. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
(done) - 2019 in Swaziland
(done) - 2020 in Swaziland
(done) - Agricultural terraces in Swaziland
(done) - Agriculture in Swaziland
(done) - Aircraft at airports in Swaziland
(done) - Aircraft of Swaziland
(**) !! - Airfields in Swaziland
(**) !! - Airlines of Swaziland
(done) - Airlink Swaziland
(done) - Airport buildings in Swaziland
(**) !! - Airports in Swaziland
(done) - Airport terminals in Swaziland
(**) !! - Ambassadors of the United States to Swaziland
(**) !! - Ambassadors to Swaziland
(done) - Anacardiaceae in Swaziland
Animals of Swaziland
(done) - Annonaceae in Swaziland
(done) - Apostolic Nuncios to Swaziland
Archaeological sites in Swaziland
(done) - Audio files of Swaziland
Automobile competitions in Swaziland by type
Automobile driving in Swaziland
Automobile driving in Swaziland
Automobile events in Swaziland
Automobile races in Swaziland by type
Automobile racing in Swaziland by type
Automobiles in Swaziland
(**) !! - Aviation in Swaziland
(done) Aviation in Swaziland by decade
(**) !! - Aviation in Swaziland by year
(done) - Aviation in Swaziland in the 2010s
(done) - Beauty pageants in Swaziland
(done) - Beauty pageant winners from Swaziland
(done) - Bilateral maps of Swaziland
Bilateral relations of Swaziland
Birds of Swaziland
Black and white photographs of Swaziland
Bodies of water in Swaziland
Buildings in Swaziland
Buildings in Swaziland by function
(done) - Categories of Swaziland
Categories of Swaziland by century
Categories of Swaziland by date
Categories of Swaziland by type
(done) - Categories of Swaziland by year
(done) - Category navigational templates for Swaziland
(done) - Children of Swaziland
(done) - Children playing in Swaziland
(done) - CIA World Factbook maps of Swaziland
Cities in Swaziland
Cliffs of Swaziland
(done) - Clothing of Swaziland
(done) - Coats of arms of Swaziland
(**) !! - Coins of Swaziland
Coleoptera of Swaziland
Competitions in Swaziland
Cuisine of Swaziland
Dams in Swaziland
(done) - Dance of Swaziland
(**) !! - Death in Swaziland
(**) !! - Deaths in Swaziland
Defunct airlines of Swaziland
Demographics of Swaziland
(**) !! - Diptera of Swaziland
Documents of Swaziland
Driving in Swaziland
Economy of Swaziland
Education in Swaziland
Embassies of Swaziland
(done) Embassy of Swaziland, Washington, D.C.
(done) Entertainment events in Swaziland
Entertainment in Swaziland
Erosion in Swaziland
Erosion landforms in Swaziland
(done) - Ethnic groups in Swaziland
(done) - Events in Swaziland
Events in Swaziland by year
Festivals of Swaziland
(done) - Flag maps of Swaziland
(done) - Flags of Swaziland
(done) - Flora of Swaziland
(done) - Flora of Swaziland by order
(done) - Flora of Swaziland by taxon
Fluvial erosion in Swaziland
Fluvial geomorphology of Swaziland
(done) - Geography of Swaziland
Geology of Swaziland
Geomorphology of Swaziland
Government of Swaziland
Health in Swaziland
High Commission of Swaziland, London
Hiking in Swaziland
(done) - Historical images of Eswatini
(done) - Historical photographs of Swaziland
History of Swaziland
History of Swaziland by period
(done) - Huts in Swaziland
(done) - Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2019 in Swaziland
(done) - Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2020 in Swaziland
(done) - Infrastructure in Swaziland
(**) !! - Insects of Swaziland
International borders of Swaziland
International relations of Swaziland
(done) - Lamiaceae in Swaziland
(done) - Lamiales in Swaziland
Landforms of Swaziland
Languages of Swaziland
(**) !! - Lepidoptera of Swaziland
(done) - LGBT in Swaziland
Lions of Swaziland
(done) - Location maps of Swaziland
(done) - Locator maps of Swaziland
(done) Magnoliales in Swaziland
Mammals of Swaziland
(*) ! - Maps of Swaziland
Markets in Swaziland
(done) - Men of Swaziland
Meter stamps of Swaziland
Military of Swaziland
Mineralogy of Swaziland
Minerals of Swaziland
Mining in Swaziland
(done) - Miss Swaziland
(**) !! - Money of Swaziland
Months in Swaziland
Motorsports in Swaziland
Mountains of Swaziland
Musicians from Swaziland
(done) - Music of Swaziland
National parks in Swaziland
(**) !! - Noctuidae of Swaziland
Nature of Swaziland
Off-road automobile competitions in Swaziland
Off-road automobile races in Swaziland
Off-road automobile racing in Swaziland
Off-roading in Swaziland
Off-road racing in Swaziland
(done) - Old maps of Swaziland
Outcrops in Swaziland
Outdoor recreation in Swaziland
Parks in Swaziland
(**) !! - Passports of Swaziland
(**) !! - Passport stamps of Swaziland
(done) - People at work in Swaziland
(done) - People of Swaziland
People of Swaziland by occupation
Petrology of Swaziland
(done) - Photographs of Swaziland
Politicians of Swaziland
Politics of Swaziland
(done) - Population pyramids of Swaziland
(done) - Post of Swaziland
(done) - Princesses of Swaziland
Pronunciation of Swaziland
Public services of Swaziland
Quality images of Swaziland
Rail transport in Swaziland
(done) - Rail transport maps of Swaziland
Rally raid automobile competitions in Swaziland
Rally raid automobile racing in Swaziland
Recreation in Swaziland
Regions of Swaziland
Ribbon bars of Swaziland
Rivers of Swaziland
Roads in Swaziland
Road transport in Swaziland
Road vehicles in Swaziland
Rock art in Swaziland
Rock formations in Swaziland
Rock paintings in Swaziland
Rocks in Swaziland
Royalty of Swaziland
(**) !! - Sapindales in Swaziland
(done) - Satellite pictures of Swaziland
Science and technology in Swaziland
September in Swaziland
Services in Swaziland
Sibusiso Matsenjwa
Society of Swaziland
Sport in Swaziland
Sports competitions in Swaziland
Sports events in Swaziland
Sports events in Swaziland by year
Sports in Swaziland
Sports in Swaziland by sport
Sports in Swaziland by year
Stamps of Swaziland
Stones in Swaziland
(done) - Suicides in Swaziland
(done) - SVG labeled maps of administrative divisions of Swaziland
(done) - SVG locator maps of regions in Swaziland
(done) - SVG locator maps of Swaziland
(done) - SVG maps of Swaziland
(done) - Swaziland Airlink
Swaziland at the Olympic Games
Swaziland at the Summer Youth Olympics
Swaziland at the Youth Olympics
Swaziland by century
Swaziland by decade
(*) ! - Swaziland by year
Swaziland in the 21st century
(*) ! - Swaziland in the 2010s
(*) ! - Swaziland in the 2020s
(done) - Symbols of Swaziland
Technology events in Swaziland
Technology in Swaziland
Tectonic landforms in Swaziland
Templates related to Swaziland
Temporal population graphs of Swaziland
(done) - Teucrioideae in Swaziland
(done) - Topographic maps of Swaziland
(done) - Topography of Swaziland
Tourism in Swaziland
Transport buildings in Swaziland
Transport events in Swaziland
Transport infrastructure in Swaziland
(done) - Transport in Swaziland
(*) ! - Transport in Swaziland by decade
Transport in Swaziland by year
(*) ! - Transport in Swaziland in the 2010s
(done) - Transport maps of Swaziland
(done) - Trucks in Swaziland
(done) - Unidentified animals in Swaziland
(**) !! - Unidentified insects of Swaziland
(**) !! - Unidentified Lepidoptera of Swaziland
Vehicles in Swaziland
Videos from Swaziland
Visas of Swaziland
Visitor attractions in Swaziland
(done) - Waterfalls in Swaziland
(done) - Wiki Loves Africa in Swaziland
(done) - Wikimedia movement in Swaziland
(done) - Women at work in Swaziland
(done) - Women of Swaziland
(done) - Women with earrings in Swaziland
(*) ! - This categories have been moved to the new name, but it is a problem to get the subcategories there. For these subcategories the parent category is not noted at the bottom of the site as usual but hidden somewhere in a template which I could not identify or change because of too much complexity. A specialist for templates has to take care of this. I think it would make sense to take this opportunity to rename these templates, for example from "Template:Aviation in Swaziland decade" to "Template:Aviation in Eswatini decade".--Bestoernesto (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
(**) !! - Here the categories are moved / renamed to *Eswatini* and the anachronistic category *Swaziland* page does not contain any pages or files anymore, but there are still countless wiki links to the redirection. This is apparently due to a chain of nested templates, which I assume usually start with the template {{{Countries of Africa}}. But it seems that there are also some other templates that use the obsolete name "Swaziland". I don't think it's in our interest to update (almost) all categories to *Eswatini* if the *Swaziland" category is still referenced from the corresponding navigation boards of other countries. First of all, 2 years after the renaming of the country, all half educated people will search in vain for the alphabetically sorted "Eswatini" on the navigation boards. (Less educated people will probably hardly deal with the topic "categories" at Commons) And secondly, if someone then discovers and clicks on the obsolete term "Swaziland", he currently only lands on the anachronistic category *Swaziland* page and has to click there again to get to the desired current category *Eswatini* page, since there is no automatic redirect. This unfortunately slows down a quick navigation.--Bestoernesto (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's how I imagined it, as that's what wikipedia has done. Our pattern here is a little inconsistent, since we do have anachronisms like Category:1532 in the United States. But unless anyone opposes, I suppose we'll just follow wikipedia's lead in the case of Swaziland vs Eswatini. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Please note that for renaming a country category, you must NOT replace directly the old name by the new name in the data module: you need to preserve the old name as a secondary alias. Otherwise navigation is immediately broken across all related pages using {{Countries of Africa}}, because it cannot locate the old pages waiting to be renamed.
Then for renaming, don't create a new category, but use "rename" to move the page (this also updates the entry in Wikidata), and keep the new redirecting page with the old name to the new name, and if that old page is a category, of course you need to move its contents to the new category. You should keep the redirecting template left in the old category (not blank it, not delete it), as it really helps the navigation, from within this wiki but as well from external sites (including search engines) that can locate the new name with no surprise. The redirecting category can remain empty (no members), with just the redirecting template, and should no longer be linked with pages on other wikis (check Wikidata to fix that). verdy_p (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Verdy p: How does the list above look now? Can we move these?
List of pages named from Swaziland
These pages must be renamed by administrators (not copy-pasted) to preserve the history
Discussion is closed after one and a half years. There was no opposition to renaming in general, the subcategories already have been renamed in general. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for closing the discussion, but it's been a non-issue since Orrling got herself banned four years ago. She probably had some good intentions, but insisted on doing many things in the most annoying possible way... AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Josh. I've run into a problem with your template...it had been applied to Category:Beechcraft aircraft of NASA at some point, and never was proper functional. I came across it because it was trying to sort into the primary Category:NASA category. As far as I can tell, all the parameters should be correct, but it is still breaking. I've commented it out so that it doesn't interfere with the live category. Mind looking in to whats going wrong?
Additionally, I see this template as being quite useful, but it has virtually no documentation to describe what some things do, or examples to show exactly what needs to go where. Even looking at the code, I can't tell what some things do. Is this something that could be made more user friendly? — Huntster (t@c)17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Huntster: Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like a few steps are required to fix this. The template has to recognize that 'Beechcraft aircraft' are a subset of 'aircraft', and therefore that if 'aircraft of ...' exists, it should be under that, and only if it does not exist should it be placed at the next higher level. The same logic applies to it being under 'aircraft in United States government service' as opposed to the parent 'aircraft in United States service'. It seems to work okay for 'aircraft in Foo service' categories, but adding these extra parameters is going to take a bit of extra work. I am working on folding this into Template:Aircraft cat so I haven't done much with 'Aircraft of operator' lately. I will take a look at it and see what I can do. For now, commenting it out and using manual categorization works.
Ah, I see. I made a bit of an assumption I suppose. I made an assumption that the "g" tag for type of user would place it into "United States government service", and that "Beechcraft aircraft" would be applied in a case of 'this doesn't match any pre-set terms, so directly apply it'. I love templates, and just haven't had time to really delve into this one's code (I'm at work). If you are deciding to fold things into "Aircraft cat", then all the better...the issue I raised was just something I randomly came across due to seeing a suspect edit, so it is certainly not a priority issue. Let me know if I can help with any testing or whatnot. — Huntster (t@c)19:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Thank you for documenting resolved Cfd discussions with this template. It is a shame that there is no provision for a link to the original discussion (or the archive of it). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me01:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Actually, it is a link to the original discussion. If you click the edit button, you will be editing the original CfD discussion, though most of these are archived and should not be actually edited. Josh (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Category:Number_17_on_products has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for closing the CFD. Did you leave the CFD template on the category for a reason, or did you just forget to remove it? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. I've been trying to think of a way to check all the categories with that template to see if the linked discussions are closed, but I haven't come up with a way. I suspect we have a number of categories where the template could be removed, especially for discussions that included multiple categories. Maybe someone with bot skills could do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes it is a very easy step to miss when going through the process of closing discussions. However, I think it is pretty harmless as anyone who notices the CfD is closed can remove the tag. If you find an automated way to identify these, let me know, I'd be happy to go work on cleaning them up. Josh (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Aircraft cat template
Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion
Yes, I figure there is some more discussion that should happen around those kinds of categories in the future, and the templates can be modified to match consensus at that point. For the meantime, letting 'by type' be a general index of all types so users don't have to understand the full taxonomy of what they are looking for. Thus having Category:Dive bomber aircraft directly under 'by type' doesn't seem too offensive to me for the time being. As a side note, I think Category:Record breaking aircraft was supposed to be for aircraft specifically designed or modified for the purpose of setting new aviation records, not just any aircraft that was designed for another purpose but happened to set some record for something. There are a lot of different ways 'type' has been used and interpreted, so I'm fine with leaving it a general catch-all. Cats can also be placed in more specific metacats of course. Josh (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm... Admittedly there is only really Category:Uiver (aircraft) directly in Category:Douglas aircraft by name to look at so one might question the need for that particular category at all, but if it exists, it is perfectly correct to consider it a metacat I would think, as it should only have categories within it, not files. As for the hardcoding question, since anything using {{Aircraft cat/manufacturer by}} should be a metacat, why not include metacat sorting and save the need for the extra template to be added (or forgotten) on each individual category? Josh (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The need to contain only categories is not what makes something a metacat. A metacat has subcats that are multiple things grouped by a particular criterion. The "by name" categories can be confusing in this way because "by name" can mean different things. For example, look at Category:Hotels by name (a metacat) and Category:Board games by name (not a metacat). The subcats for hotels are each for all hotels with the indicated name (for example, Category:Hotels named Bristol); in this case, "by name" means "grouped by shared name"--different things with the same name are grouped there. The subcats for board games are each for an individual game (for example, Category:7 Wonders (board game)); in this case, "by name" means that each game is identified by name and there is one category for each game. For categories like the board games, you use {{CatCat}}, not {{MetaCat}}, to indicate that the category should contain only other categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I am not seeing why these two are fundamentally different. It is true that most of the hotels in Hotels by name are grouped into "Hotels named name" categories, but not all are (e.g. Adina Apartment Hotels). Also, most board games in Board games by name have unique names but that is also not exclusively so (i.e. there could well crop up a "Board games named xxx" category if there were a specific name used by more than one game). While most topics might trend towards either one or the other, they are not exclusive. Certainly you do not intend that we should have two parallel "Topic by name" categories, one for "Topic named xxx" and the other for "xxx (topic)" categories requirings users to know whether the name they are looking for is used by more than one category within the topic, are you? Or that we should have to create a "Topic named xxx" category to hold "xxx (topic)", even if there is only one category by that name under the topic? Josh (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The hotel chain categories are questionable there, IMO, but the category is intended to be for groupings. As for the board name category, if there were multiple games with the same name, that could be handled either by just making separate individual entries or by creating a metacategory for them. You could also create a disambiguation category for them. Template:MetaCat says "Use this tag for meta categories only, that should only contain other categories that are grouped by a specified criterion." Commons:Meta category also explains that metacategories are for groupings of things that have something in common. I know this is tricky to understand: it's because "by name" is used in different ways.
As far as parallel categories, I haven't seen a case where we'd need that. For example, we have Category:People by name which is for individual people and is not a metacategory; where there are mulitple people with the same name we use a disambiguation page (for example, Category:Cornelis Danckerts), not a metacategory. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
As for whether to hardcode the metacat category, I wasn't suggesting that it should be coded on each category. I was saying that Template:Aircraft cat/manufacturer by should be changed to use the metacat template instead of hardcoding the category there. Although in this case, it might need to use the catcat template instead in some cases. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I see what you are saying here. However there are some layout issues I am trying to fix there. So long as the functionality is correct, I don't see a technical problem, especially since {{MetaCat}} is pretty stable, but I will try some alternatives to get it to where I can just call {{MetaCat}} from {{Aircraft cat}}. Josh (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Josh. I just undid the changes you made to this category because, again, this kind of category is not a metacat by name. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Josh. I know this is being discussed at CFD, but I just noticed another issue. The category is a child of itself. Can you take a look at the template and see if you can fix that? It would also be helpful if you could add some examples of different combinations of parameters to the template documentation if you get a chance. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Auntof6: Thanks for noting that one. It was the result of Airbus being a subsidiary of Airbus on Wikidata, so I added a check to not add the parent org level cat in a case where it would be the same name. That seems to have eliminated the self-reference. I agree that the documentation should be written at some point, I have to find the time to get my head around that part of it, I guess. Josh (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Would you like some help with these? Just give me a subset to work on--or even all of the remaining ones--and I'll be glad to do them. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Of course! I'm working backwards chronologically, there are a lot in 1915 to do so if you want to start from the other end of it, much appreciated! Josh (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I finished 1915, adding sort keys and date categories like you did. I also tagged all the old ones as renamed to get them deleted. It looks like all the years are done now. Let me know if there's any remaining task that you'd like help with. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the help, I'm just hoping to close some more CfDs this week and get them done. If there are any more batches like this one, I'll ping you. Thanks! Josh (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Unusable link added
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
It appears that your latest edit to this template created an unintended and unwanted result for other dependent templates (see Category:West Virginia Route 211 for an example). Since you are more aware of what's involved, you should be notified instead of just undoing the change. An Errant Knight (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Somewhat related item, which you may or may not be able to assist, but since you have a better grasp of the coding involved than this editor. . .
An glitch has been identified in attempt to create navigation template for the state highways in Michigan (similar to many other states). These templates are based upon your creation, the Number cat template. The issue with Michigan involves the unique naming of its state highways, which are "M-### (Michigan highway)" (with ### being the number of the highway and no space between the "M-" and the highway number). The template inserts a space between the seriesprefix ("M-") and the highway number. The result is that it lists the "Category:M- ### (Michigan highway)", which don't exist, instead of "Category:M-### (Michigan highway)". The possible fix may not be within the Number cat template, but in a significant change to the Michigan highway number template itself.
@An Errant Knight: Interesting... It seems the code was already in the /layout for the template, but the pass-through parameter wasn't set up yet (I hadn't yet come across a real-world case for this feature). Anyway, a tweak to {{Number cat}} fixed that, and so now you should be able to use the parameters seriesprefixns and seriessuffixns for situations where either is required to be used without a space being added. I have made the change to the Michigan route template and M-1 (Michigan highway) appears to work correctly now. Hopefully this works for the whole series, but let me know if you find any issues. Thanks, Josh (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Since you offered. . . several states have suffixed routes, for example, Oregon Route 422S. It does not appear that the existing templates accommodate anything but numbers, but if they could, it would be nice. However, the benefit of such a "feature" may not be worth the work necessary. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ah...of course it will create the list, but only look for other numbers that also have that suffix, just like the prefix works. I will have to give this more thought this weekend. But I'm inspired...I've actually driven Oregon Route 422S. Maybe I should go back and get some pictures. Josh (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
As you have already seen, getting the template to return the proper highway shield seems to work fine, getting the list of highways to include the suffixed ones is much more challenging and definitely requires coding that is beyond the limited expertise of this editor. It may have to remain on the wish list for some time--or even indefinitely. Thanks again for your assistance! An Errant Knight (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Dear Joshbaumgartner, Are you Interested in Film Making/Videography/Cinematography or Animated films? We think you are. Featured video candidates needs your help and you can help by reviewing , nominating your videos for the FV Tag. You can start reviewing/nominating videos now. Welcome ! -- Eatcha (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Josh. I appreciate you wanting to get RFDs closed, but this one needs to stay open until all are resolved. Therefore I un-closed it. Multiple categories are tagged with this RFD because they need resolution: please don't remove those tags unless they are resolved. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Auntof6: Okay no problem, we can keep the discussion open if you want. You were more involved in it, so maybe there are still open items to be decided? I thought the resolution was clear, it was just the actual work of implementing that remained to be done. Josh (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, you are creating a complete mess. The name „Deutsche Marine“ as name for the Navy of the Bundeswehr only came in use in 1995. before it was Bundesmarine. So, many of the ships you now categorised as „Deutsche Marine“ never had this attribution but were seen as Bundesmarine ships. Tp avoid this problem, the term Navy of the Bundeswehr is being used here. Please revert your edits. --KuK (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what the problem is, Deutsche Marine and Bundesmarine are the same navy, just a name change, so whether a ship served in the 1970s or the 2010s, they served in the same navy, so they should be listed together under that same navy. 'Navy of the Bundeswehr' is not the name of anything ever, so it doesn't solve anything. Category:Deutsche Marine covers the Bundesmarine, so therefore logic dictates that Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine covers Ships of the Bundesmarine. Josh (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Josh, but you are wrong! The “Deutsche Marine” is the common navy of “Bundesmarine” and “Volksmarine” since the reunion of Germany. After your recats, unfortunately without previous discussion with German users, many ships are listed in a category, where they never have been in service! --Ein Dahmer (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean by 'common navy'? The navy was called Bundesmarine until 1995, several years after re-unification, so the idea that Deutsche Marine was some brand-new navy created from the bits of the Bundesmarine and Volksmarine is completely false. By any reasonable measure, the Volksmarine was absorbed into the Bundesmarine during re-unification, and just like all other East German institutions, the eastern institution ceased to exist and the western institution essentially carried on as the new whole for the unified country. If I was wrong as you claim, there would be a Category:Bundesmarine to cover what you claim to be a different navy, but there is not (it is just a redirect). Josh (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Your statement: "The navy was called Bundesmarine until 1995 ..." is missleading. "Bundesmarine" and "Deutsch Marine" were always more or less unofficial. Officialy in the west the correct Name was and is now: "Marine". So in 1995 the "Bundesmarie" wasn't renamed, it kept being the "Marine". But the former unofficial name "Bundesmarine" became out of use. Not by an exact date but gradually replaced after the unification and was replaced unofficialy by "Deutsche Marine". In 1995 "Deutsche Marine" became somewhat half official, when it was decidet to use this term in circunstances when a national definition is needet.--WerWil (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Template editor given
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have grantedtemplate editor right to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to work with templates. Please consider enabling two-factor authentication for your account. Furthermore, please look at Category:Commons protected edit requests (template protected) occasionally and try to help your fellow Commoners with responding to their edit requests. Thank you.
Delete There is no official definition of "Northern France", so everybody can include whatever he deems suitable. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Similarly to Southern France, an useful global/maintenance category when one feels uncertain or lazy. There is an important divide between North and South in France, geographically and culturally, so these categories are relevant. The frontier is traditonally considered to be the Loire. Please refer to Southern France on Wikipedia. Nothing on Northern France though, I suppose it's because the North is less popular than the sunny South ;) - Olybrius (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Support I don't see how 1940 is a viable cut-off date in the history of civil aviation. De728631 (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
