Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in September 2017.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/09.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2017-09.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Low quality images of plants[edit]

Do we really need such category's? We have {{Low quality}} Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've tagged a few similar categories to increase participation in the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No we don't need them. (Especially since I've seen that some of my images have been placed just in there! :-) --E4024 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How {{Low quality}} can help users to select pics in category? The template is useless for users. Kenraiz (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say you have consensus to delete if you want, Steinsplitter. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Themightyquill: Removed or replaced. I avoided adding any low-ql-template because i found some good photos as well and likely very low ql photos should be deleted. A list of affected files is here just in the case someone wants to look at it. I think you can close the CFD then. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Steinsplitter: {{Low quality}} applies to the whole of a photograph, while the scope of this CfD are (also) used to categorize background details of otherwise unrelated photographs, which can be of high quality in toto. (That’s why most of these cats should probably be renamed from "(low quality)" to "(incidental)".) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Low photographic quality, while worth being categorized, is not a criteria fo deletion per se. In the case at hand many botanical aspcts that are notable may only have these images to attest them, being therefore in scope regardless of low quality. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This was a wrong deletion, and I regret I din’t saw this discussion before. Please inform yourselves about the significance of these categories, undelete them, and repopulate (yes, it’s lots of work — but it’s good for the project, and also yiels a lot of admin actions into your edit count!). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: No files have been deleted (I just proposed bad ql files may be deleted if out of scope, but i am not a fan of deleting such files. I saw a number of good one in those category's), just the unneeded category has been removed as per consensus above. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Steinsplitter: I also missed this discussion. Can we please undo this? The reason we had this category is that it gets clogged up with images that are of such bad quality that they are impossible to identify. People who periodically look through the unidentified plants cat to identify images then have to scroll past heaps of images again and again because they will never be identified. Amada44  talk to me 16:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Amada44: There were multiple category's for identified files, i don't think such tagging is currently allowed. Regarding plants which are impossible to identify, maybe there should be a category for that (impossible to identify). We also can batch add them to the cat if needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Steinsplitter: You have just deleted 14 categories without following the procedures of Commons:Categories for discussion based on one person saying that he dosen’t like the category because one of his images was put in them and one person agreeing with that. You did not notify the category creators. Following cats where deleted:
Category:Low quality images of plants
Category:Unidentified plants in India (low quality)
Category:Unidentified plants (low quality)
Category:Unidentified Arecaceae (low quality)
Category:Low quality images of plants
Category:Picea abies (low quality images)
Category:Chelidonium majus (low quality images)
Category:Unidentified plants (low quality)
Category:Tomatoes (Low Quality)
Category:Rhododendron luteum (low quality images)
Category:Portulaca pilosa (low quality)
Category:Erodium cicutarium (low quality images)
Category:Dryas octopetala (low quality images)
Category:Bellis perennis (low quality images)
Category:Unidentified Poaceae (low quality)

Why did you not follow the procedures of Commons:Categories for discussion? I really don’t see a consensus for deleting all those cats especially since you did not notify the creators. Could you undelete the categories and move the images back. In future you should really stick to the procedures of Commons:Categories for discussion. Amada44  talk to me 20:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since this don't seems to be uncontroversial, i restored the old status to prevent any kind of disruption & drama. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking through the categories linked above, many of the images categorizes like this are crisp and high resolution, and therefore I don't think they even qualify as "low quality." - Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale discussion. It seems that  Keep. I also see that Category:Images of low quality is massive and probably used a lot--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete There's no need to categorise images by 'low quality'. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Estopedist1: Anything tagged with {{Low quality}} tag automatically goes in Category:Images of low quality. So a low quality image of a plant tagged with that template which is also added to Category:Low quality images of plants will be in Category:Images of low quality and its child category Category:Low quality images of plants. That's obviously redundant and breaks COM:Overcat. I'm not sure what to do about it since I don't have the skill to fix the template. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep all Yes we ABSOLUTELY do need them. It's much easier to sort them using hot cat rather than tagging each image, and, most importantly it means the unusable images can be moved out of the normal category, where they just clutter things up. These are essential for the big tourist sites, not to mention cats (felids) I suppose. I wush more people set these up and populated them. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete (or move them to a new name not referring to quality). Quality is handled through different processes in Commons, guided by some form of community consensus. With regards to something being "incidental" in an image or not... that is not related to quality, but incidentality (sic). Disclaimer: I've reached this discussion by finding this category in a reasonably usable file (not mine). Strakhov (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete I think we are better off not intersecting low quality images with categorization. What is someone supposed to do in Category:Unidentified plants in India (low quality)? Go up and find another unidentified plant and replace the low-quality image with a higher quality but also unidentified image? For the more useful categories, if I see an image in use that has a low quality tag, I can look into the category (not the parent to find the non-low quality images) and replace the image in use. It seems like categorization for the sake of categorization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep per Johnbod Юрий Д.К 17:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per above. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Food by background[edit]

The subcats should be harmonized to either be "food with ... background" or "food on ... background". I prefer "with" but I think it could use discussion before moving everything. Guanaco (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it would be better to harmonize them, but I think "on" sounds slightly better. However it's close enough that I suggest we just go with which ever requires less re-categorization. Interestingly, among the other "X by background" categories, there doesn't look to me to be a strong majority. Within this Food category, I see all 6 Apple subcategories use on, along with 3 of the other categories. with has the other 7 categories, giving it a majority of the direct subcats, but a minority when the Apple subcats are counted. Sigh. JesseW (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's also the two coffee subcategories, Category:Cups of coffee on white background and Category:Coffee cups with transparent background, which should probably get harmonized, too. JesseW (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale discussion. @Guanaco and JesseW: both "on" and "with" are used a lot. Does a native English-speaker (eg user:Auntof6, user:Themightyquill) has a clear preference? I am not native, but my clear preference is "on"--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, yes, this is a blast from the past. My view hasn't changed -- either one is fine, let's just pick one and go for it. JesseW (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that this is a discussion that needs to be held for the entirety of the Category:Objects by background subtree at once. It does not make sense to agree on one convention for food and another one for (e.g.) weapons. Propose to close this without changes and start a new one for all subcategories of Category:Objects by background. That might also have the benefit of getting more people involved. --El Grafo (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Seafood in Chile[edit]

Will write below. E4024 (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • In principle, no problem. Lots of seafood in Chile. (Been there, seen that.) I open this cat into discussion because I just uploaded the File:Centollas in a can.jpg. This can may have been bought in, or imported from Chile, or simply bought in any deli store across Europe, especially Italy, Spain or France. (20-25 Euros "una cagadita" :) Therefore I need the cat called Category:Seafood of Chile, just as we have Category:Seafood of Spain. (You can find cans of sardines from Spain -or Portugal- in Turkey and use this kind of cats for those sardines.) The problem is, we have "in" cats for some countries (Chile, China) and "of" cats (or two cats) for others. As I am a maniac of standardization this situation disturbs me... What next? --E4024 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • BTW we also need a Category:Canned seafood, which I may or may not open in any moment. --E4024 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the current category (Category:Food ingredients of Chile) is sufficient. In this case, I'm not sure the precise location of the can is important information. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was not saying that "the precise location of the can is important information", indeed you open the can and prepare a plate which you may place in Category:Plates with seafood in Turkey or Category:Plates with seafood in Italy etc. I was trying to say that "the origin of the seafood is important". How can I succeed to be understood just the opposite of what I'm trying to express? Is my English so bad? :-) --E4024 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But why is Category:Food ingredients of Chile insufficient? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could it be because we are talking about one of the most important seafood producer/exporter countries of the world? --E4024 (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale discussion. @Themightyquill: Here are several questions arised. Do we have preference of using "Seafood in" or "Seafood of"? If I see Category:Food ingredients by country, then predominantly "Food ingredients of" is used--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Louisiana Superdome[edit]

Should be merged to Category:Mercedes-Benz Superdome to align with the en-wiki article en:Mercedes-Benz Superdome. There is no substantial difference between the images in the two categories except the time period and the separate categories only adds confusion. It's possible to create _____ by year categories if separation by time period is a necessity.

Renaming the category based on corporate naming rights also follows other NFL stadium categories:

I realize that this is not completely consistent - Category:Cowboys Stadium links to en:AT&T Stadium. I'd be fine with the merge going the other way, but either way, the files should be consolidated into a single category. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Disagree. For the majority of it's existence, the building has been officially the "Louisiana Superdome". It has a temporary marketing deal which began 23 October 2011 for a projected 10 year period into the future; no provision has been made to extend this advertising into the past. (For example to state that the 1988 Republican National Convention took place at the "Mercedes-Benz Superdome" would be a falsehood, since no building of that name existed at the time.) Notes: Within Louisiana outside of commercial sports broadcasting and advertising it is still generally simply known as "The Superdome", as it has been. For an example of the advertising promotion not being used when referring to the building in the time before the marketing deal began, see eg usage at the New Orleans Times-Picayune/Nola com: [1] -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • P.S.: As to "no substantial difference between the images"; the most easily noticeable difference is specifically that large Mercedes-Benz logo and text is on the building during the marketing period. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I don't see any real difference between what you describe, and images of the Miami Dolphins' home when it was named Joe Robbie/Dolphin/Pro Player/Sun life being under Category:Hard Rock Stadium? It's the same building in the same location serving the same purpose under a different name. Name of the building doesn't change what's happening in it. With the Superdome, nothing has changed about the stadium structurally. It's the same shape, size and color.
      • Also, how do you feel about a merge going the other way, with Category:Mercedes-Benz Superdome merging and redirecting to Category:Louisiana Superdome? Ytoyoda (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I have no strong opinion on what the parent category should be. Most of the media we have is from when it was officially the Louisiana Superdome, and if no extended marketing agreement is made that's likely what it will be again. However I acknowledge that "Mercedes-Benz Superdome" is the current official name, and the possibility that over the next few years should that continue the media specifically relevant to when the building was so named is likely to become more numerous. I just feel it inappropriate to recategorize historic media into a name that did not exist at the time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The merchandising deal having expired, the stadium is no longer branded "Mercedes-Benz" and has reverted to being "The Louisiana Superdome". I suggest closing this discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Infrogmation and Ytoyoda: enwiki article is under the name en:Caesars Superdome (Commons equivalent category:Caesars Superdome). If the previously mentioned Louisiana Superdome and Mercedes-Benz Superdome are the same building, they should be merged into category:Caesars Superdome--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not en:wikipedia. I think Commons has a bit more grounding in history and a bit less frantic eagerness to frequently change things for the sake of recentism. There was no such building as "Caesars Superdome" until July 2021. The vast majority of our media predates that, and it would be dishonest to describe it by a name that did not exist at the time. The permanent legal name of the structure is the "Louisiana Superdome". If all media should be in a single category, that is what the category should be. If we wish to bow to commercial advertising, names of the advertiser should only apply to media from the time when the advertising sponsorship was in effect, so "Caesars Superdome" would be a subcategory for media from late 2021 until whenever the sponsorship expires or the name is changed again. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld[edit]

Inadmissible German language mishmash category. Should be split into different subcategories! Ies (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose There are many subcategories already. The Eichsfeld is a region where religious objects are more evident than in the surrounding areas of Germany. So it would probably help to have such a parent category for all those subcategories, e.g. Religion in the Eichsfeld. imo the category could be renamed rather than split or deleted. --Dehio (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would lean toward deleting all of these. We don't need to subdivide every building by every historical region. We have Category:Churches in Landkreis Eichsfeld, that's enough. Category:Eichsfeld should be used to categorize files specifically related to that historical region, e.g. maps, crests, etc. Otherwise we end up with a category for nursing homes in Category:Germania Inferior. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Eichsfeld and Landkreis Eichsfeld are not the same area. The Eichsfeld contains most (not all) villages in Landkreis Eichsfeld (in Thuringia), many in Landkreis Göttingen (in Lower saxony), some in Landkreis Northeim (Lower saxony) and Unstrut-Hainich-Kreis (Thuringia) and even one in Weera-Meißner-Kreis (in Hesse) - see also de:Liste der Orte im Eichsfeld.
You can see at once whether you are in an Eichsfeld village or not. Today, not a few hundred years ago. There is a difference at least in religion and in religious architecture. And if you talk to the people, you will as well hear the difference in what they say (though not in their dialect, which is similar to the nearby villages not in the Eichsfeld). You can't see or hear by talking to people whether or not you are in Germania inferior or even in Kingdom of Westphalia, but you can see it in the Eichsfeld. So it's not just a historical region, but also today's reality. In my opinion most of these categories make sense, at least the "religious" categories (wayside shrines, chapels, churches, wayside crosses, monasteries, stations of the cross, pilgrimage sites, grottoes of mary, Maria columns etc.). At the moment I agree with you in case of the "transport"-category, and perhaps the castles and village greens. A "boundary stones"-category makes sense as far as the stones really mark the boundaries of the Eichsfeld and not just Hesse/Prussia or something like that, for example if they show the Wheel of Mainz. --Dehio (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, thank you, Dehio, for trying to explain, even if I'm not totally convinced. "you will as well hear the difference in what they say, though not in their dialect" Then how? I don't understand. I could maybe accept that there would still remain a unique religious culture and religious architecture in the historical region relative to neighbouring regions, particularly for older buildings. But would you really see a difference in architecture if you cross from the Eichsfeld areas of Landkreis Göttingen into the non-Eichsfeld areas of Landkreis Göttingen? And would you notice a difference in Category:Hotels in Eichsfeld‎ and Category:Restaurants in Eichsfeld‎? Are the Category:Information boards in Eichsfeld‎ from the region especially distinct? Is the Category:Geology of Eichsfeld‎ really unique? The Category:Tabacco processing in Eichsfeld‎ <sic> ? Category:Hospitals in Eichsfeld‎ and Category:Nursing homes in Eichsfeld‎ ? I find this rather hard to accept. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where was that Cohiba pic taken? In Germany? --E4024 (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Themightyquill, for your explanation. I do think you're right for most or all of these categories. The difference is mostly in religion and religious culture (including architecture and non-material cultural elements which I meant when I wrote You can hear it by talking to the people). Many people in Eichsfeld have a feeling of special identity, they are proud of belonging to the Eichsfeld. When you're in the next village (out of Eichsfeld) and ask anyone, whether you are still in the Eichsfeld or not, he or she will probably get angry about anyone supposing this village could belong to the Eichsfeld. That's probably why these categories were created and because of that it may be hard to convince anyone living in the Eichsfeld that they should be deleted. For me personally all these categories are helpful, but I do only need the religious categories (and of course the historic ones). But of course you are right: You can't distinguish hotels, restaurants (except that nearly every second hotel or restaurant will have "Eichsfeld" in the name), hospitals, roads or even timber framing in or out of the Eichsfeld. You can just see a different architecture of the churches and as soon as you drive from a non-Eichsfeld village into the Eichsfeld you will see wayside crosses and wayside shrines nearly on every high hill, and under every green tree.
This tobacco image is strange. I know there was a lot of tobacco planting in Eichsfeld and there were some cigar manufacturers. A lot of the tobacco consumed in the region came from the Eichsfeld and some nearby villages (e.g. Unterrieden, not in the Eichsfeld) up to the middle of the 20th century. But I'm not yet convinced this photo was taken in Eichsfeld or even in Germany. Cohiba? In Germany? There's something wrong, I reckon. --Dehio (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose "Sorry, dass ich hier deutsch schreibe, meine Englischkenntnisse sind nicht so gut. Ich bin selbst Eichsfelder und versuche mal zu erklären, warum die Erhaltung der (meisten) Kategorien sinnvoll ist. Das Eichsfeld ist eben nicht nur ein historisches Gebiet (als "Eichsfelder Staat" bis 1802), sondern noch heute fühlen sich die meisten Menschen in genau den Grenzen von 1802 als "Eichsfelder" und erst in zweiter Hinsicht als Thüringer oder Niedersachsen. Auf der anderen Seite der Eichsfeldgrenze sagen die Menschen mit der gleichen Deutlichkeit, das sie keine Eichsfelder sind. Die Ursachen liegen in der unterschiedlichen religiösen Ausprägung und Geschichte (das Eichsfeld ist überwiegend katholisch und die Nachbarregionen evangelisch), die sich bis heute erhalten hat. Der Landkreis Eichsfeld umfaßt zwar große Teile des Eichsfeldes, ist aber nicht identisch mit dem Eichsfeld. Während das Eichsfeld als Region geographisch, kulturell seit Jahrhunderten konstant bleibt, ändern sich die Verwaltungsstrukturen ständig (Landkreis Duderstadt und Landkreis Gottingen in Niedersachsen; Landkreise Heiligenstadt/Worbis/Mühlhausen, Kreise Heiligenstadt/Worbis, Landkreis Eichsfeld und so weiter in Thüringen. Auch in Veröffentlichungen und in Büchern zu verschiedenen Themen (wie Religion, Kirche, Geschichte aber auch Geographie, Geologie, Schienenverkehr, Tourismus und andere) ist immer vom "Eichsfeld" die Rede und nicht vom "Landkreis Eichsfeld". Auch wenn es keine spezifisch eichsfeldische Architektur gibt, so gibt es aber doch bei vielen Kirchen im Eichsfeld [File:Kirche in Zella (Anrode).JPG] und im benachbarten Thhüringen [File:Dachrieden Kirche.JPG] deutliche Unterschiede. Sicher kann man über den Nutzen einiger Commons-Kategorien (zum Beispiel Category:Nursing homes in Eichsfeld) streiten und gegebenfalls auch entfernen, die meisten Kategorien sollten aber erhalten bleiben. Das man die Namen der Kategorien auf die englischen Versionen vereinheitlichen will ist wohl nicht zu verhindern, obwohl es bestimmt noch genug (deutsche) Internetnutzer gibt, die keine besonderen Sprachkenntnisse haben.--79.214er (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If absolutely necessary, translation into English version is all right.--79.214er (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale discussion. @Themightyquill: I translated all remaining categories, except two tough ones: Category:Warten im Eichsfeld and Category:Kirmes im Eichsfeld. Can any German user (eg @Achim55, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Túrelio, and DerHexer: ) could help here? If no easy translations for these two categories. Then just to be renamed to "Warten in Eichsfeld" and "Kirmes in Eichsfeld"--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Estopedist1, I added a short desc to Category:Warte, don't know if there is a suitable word in English language. Watchtowers might perhaps fit. --Achim55 (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1 and Achim55: To your questions above:
1. Category:Warten im Eichsfeld can be moved to Category:Watch towers in Eichsfeld with leaving a redirect, for exampe Category:Warte in Baden-Württemberg is a redirect to Category:Watch towers in Baden-Württemberg
2. Category:Kirmes im Eichsfeld can be moved to Category:Funfairs in Eichsfeld with leaving a redirect.
Greets Triplec85 (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zur Kategorie Warten: Ich antworte mal in Deutsch: Die "Warte" bezeichnet einen mittelalterlichen Beobachtungsturm, während die Kategorie "Watch towers" verschiedene Arten von Beobachtungstürmen beschreibt (mittelalterliche Warten, Grenztürme, KZ-Türme, Wildbeobachtungstürme usw.) Deshalb sollte man die Kategorie "Warte" beibehalten und passenden übergeordneten Kategorien zuordnen.-Wilkosense (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed: Warte should stay as specific name but funfair for Kirmes seems okay with me. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:International Harvester trucks[edit]

It is for International trucks made by International Harvester Co / Corp. The Harvester word is superfluous and misleading Eddaido (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Trucks built by International Harvester (and Navistar) are branded "International". This is true from the 1908 "International Gasoline Auto Buggies" [2] until the present[3]. (I have posted this in many places). Sammy D III (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at the evidence (and some further old ads) and support such a renaming. This does not mean that I support any ancillary changes, unnecessary merging or misnaming the Australian vehicles. As a matter of good practice it may always be a god idea to contact editors with previous involvement,such as @BarnCas: . Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to oppose such a move, partially because of the old ads that Mr.choppers (talk · contribs) mentioned, and partially because of the long-standing use of the "IH" logo designed by Raymond Loewy. ----DanTD (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can say that seventy-five years of International Harvester brocures for "International" trucks are not accurate? The company that built the trucks did not know their own brand? You have a reference that disputes that? You are going to continue using the wrong name for the logo?
Before I was asked about this it never occured to me that people might not know the difference, I thought it was common knowledge. POV, I guess. I posted it several places. Think: Is it a "Ford" (brand) XYZ or a "Ford Motor Company" (manufacturer) XYZ. And someone designed that blue oval. Sammy D III (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Eddaido had a sound basic point at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trucks#International_trucks_without_the_Harvester but we screwed things up really bad. But the basic point itself is sound.

It sort of looks like a cultural circular logic deal to me. I don't know if that makes sense. Everything is labeled "Harvester" so you think that way. And we all know the connection because we know trucks. But all the photos have International and I don't think any have Harvester. People have brought the Harvester thinking in with them. And it is not the name of the truck itself. I hope this makes any sense, thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 I disagree about such a merge:
As said in Navistar corporate site: "The year 1986 brought a new beginning to this 155 year old company, now known as Navistar.". International Harvester and (Navistar) International are practically 2 different brands: the latter emerged only when IH sold all its farming activities, leading, among other things, the logo and the badge lettering to be changed. Trucks made before 1986 were indeed apparently proposed as International only but were unequivocally claimed to be International Harvester products: one can see it when looking at contemporary ads or brochures, where the IH logo and International Harvester Company can be seen every time at the end of the documents. That also appears in the 1910 Roadster specs visible in Sammy D III's first link: it starts with "Introducing the IHC roadster [...]".
Moreover, and as almost said by DanTD, the IH logo appeared somewhere on the grille of almost all trucks as brand logo starting with the 1953+ R-Series and until 1985 (see the 1981+ 9670, the 1983+ 9370...). For me, and without hesitation, all of this makes the pre-1986 trucks more than (just) "International" models: they're clearly "International Harvester" ones.
So I think we shouldn't merge the 2 categories. Adding a short explanation at the top of both categories could avoid lots of categorizing errors, as long as people make some effort to understand the difference. People searching for "International trucks" from a specific period will be directed the same way to the correct category.
Regards, BarnCas (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BarnCas: @DanTD: @Eddaido: @Mr.choppers:
I know absolutely first hand that these are "Internationals", but that doesn't count. This is frustrating. I hope I am polite.
I link seventy-five years of every model truck International Harvester built, and you come up with one example to challenge the overwhelming majority of the info. The last three words in the first sentence of the exception are "International auto vehicles". "International", not "International Harvester". The exception uses both names. I do imagine there are a few other exceptions.
Of course the IHC blurb is on the bottom, they are the manufacturer who is giving information on their products.
Nobody has ever disputed who the manufacturer was. It was IHC. Nobody has ever disputed the IHC logo was on the trucks. It was. My issue is the name of the truck brand. Only. Do you have any support for as brand logo? Why is it not as manufacturer logo? And how does the name threaten the logo anyway?
You seem to be using your opinion of a hood ornament to address the name. They are two different things. The grille says "International". Do we think the word "Harvester" is used anywhere other than the builder's plate? If it was part of the brand name wouldn't it be used somewhere? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have International brocures from 1957 into Navistar. Here are some front covers: 1957 International Cab over engine VCO-405...--1967 International 400 series--International 4200, 4300, and Eagle--International 4470 Australia (a COE)--International CO Loadstar--International CO4070. There are 17 others. All identify the truck as "International". No "Harvesters on the cover, only the last page credits. Most of these trucks were built by IHC. These may have copywrite problems here, but you don't have to believe me.
Edit: this is a lot of fun to find this stuff. I am going to keep adding them. Anything between here and "The IH hood ornament..." is new edit.
Davies, Peter J. (2000) The World Encyclopedia of Trucks, Lorenz Books ISBN: 0-7548-0518-2. Page 401 is Melbourne, Australia International Harvester. International Harvester, ACCO (or is that a model?), Seddon Atkinson, International Australia, ENASA, ITAL, and Iveco are in the text as corporations but do not relate to individual trucks (ACCO?). Trucks is an ACCO G2350 which has a visible S International logo RF. In the text is International truck ACCO G(?) and International 7600. International Transtar 4670 has International across the grille. But this is Australia, I don't know them.
Page 402-403 are Chicago, Illinois, USA, International Harvester (my turf). McCormack, Deering, all the Australian companies, and Navistar are in the text as corporations but do not relate to individual trucks. All trucks in the text are International, International's, or just model numbers. None have Harvester. "the International name badge was adopted in 1914" is wrong, we know it was used by IHC in 1908. Maybe they are talking about a physical sign? But it is a ref, so we should debate 1908 vs. 1914 start. First pic is "International Harvester's early". Then to "International's" XL series cabovers have Int'l on LF and L door. Transtar cabover has Int'l over grille. Three have no clear name. Many of these pics have the IHC logo clearly visible, but that is already acknowledged.
(1973) Motor's Truck and Diesel Repair Manual (26th ed.), Motor ISBN: 0-910992-16-9. The index has "International Diesel Engines" (1224-1249) and "International" (915-953). The word "Harvester is never used in the index or either section.
I think I saw a Scout Chilton's at Half-Price Books.
How about the US military? Trucks built for the military are Internal Harvester Model xxx, so a good case for trucks built specifically for the US Military being Harvesters can be made. Prototypes and civilian types are International or International's, but some are IHC's Model. Crismon, Fred W. (2001) Modern U.S. Military Vehicles, MBI Publishing, pp. 93, 94, 113, 129, 148... ISBN: 0-7603-0526-9. uses International or International's. I don't want to skim any more pages, call this one a draw? The US Military does buy custom-built International Harvester Model trucks.
Wood, Donald F. (1998) American Buses, MBI Publishing, pp. 23, 41, 42,58, 65, 77, 96, 101, 116, 123, 127, 130 ISBN: 0-7603-00432-7. uses International or International chassis. Captions, I didn't read the text, I'm not doing buses just now. Not a lot of pics, International has always been big on school buses, not transit or highway. And these are buses or chassis, should they count?. Wait, aren't some of your chassis-cowls sold without cabs so they can take custom, including bus, bodies? Hmmmm.
I don't know if this[4] counts. It is a truck sales sight. It is not official, probably not a ref, it can only tell you what professionals who buy, sell, and operate International trucks call them.
[5]
[6]
Crismon, Frederick W. (2002) International Trucks, 2 edition, Minneapolis, MN: Victory WW2 Publishing, ISBN 0-9700567-2-9 I do not have this book but I call attention to it's title.
Haynes, Chilton and factory Scout shop manuals all say International on the cover. I don't have them, it took a couple of minutes Googling "International Scout shop manuals" to come up with a bunch. Deep research. International Scout Encyclopedia by Jim Allen and John Glancey comes up too. The cover shows International and IH's (possesive?).
I give you military tacs, but how about their engines? Doyle, David (2003) Standard catalog of U.S. Military Vehicles, Kraus Publications, pp. 101, 125, 127, 174 ISBN: 0-87349-508-X. have Red Diamond 361 or 450. Do half-tracks count (p. 369)? Red Diamond 450.
The IH hood ornament you talk about doesn't say "Harvester" but some say "International". That I have seen.
The brand name is "International". It is a fact. If you want I can keep getting sources forever. You are grasping at straws in order to support your opinion. There are hundreds of documents [7] here already which refute your opinion. You may get support but you will never be correct. Sammy D III (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Denigrating others' opinion or repeating endlessly the same things won't make your point of view a truth. Nor will "clobber" people with endless posts...
For now this discussion gives:
  • someone who wants absolutely this merge to be done so the huge mess (s)he made unilaterally in the International Harvester / International categories will be validated without having to face what his/her rogue behavior implies for Commons. I'm not sure we should encourage this kind of behavior, and I for sure don't want to be part of that;
  • 1 person "pro-merge" who express several time his opinion (but this makes still only one opinion Clin);
  • 1 person who said he is "pro" as long as this change doesn't involve more than the parent category (which is apparently not the purpose of the person who asked for the merge);
  • 2 people against that merge.
No consensus, then, for now.
This said, and to answer to your questions, Sammy D III (no need to answer to my answers, I already read your counterarguments in the post above lol):
  • About the IHC Roadster: a single counterexample in mathematics or logic is enough to question the main assertion. And this is the same for sources, for me. And to be honest, I didn't have to search a lot, I just checked the first vehicles. How many other counterexamples are present in the rest of the document you linked?
  • As far as I know, logos in the grille / hood ornaments are brand logos. You see more likely Chevrolet or GMC logos on concerned vehicles than GM ones, Freightliner ones instead of Mercedes-Benz versions; Dodge or Chrysler in place of Fiat. I may be wrong, but I also see the IH logo as brand logo because of the change that took place with the switch between the L-Series (which used the same grille logo as the K/KB-Series and the previous truck lines) and the already mentioned R-Series:
  • KB-Series ornament
    KB-Series ornament
  • R-Series and later
    R-Series and later
If I'm not mistaken, IH stands here for International Harvester. And why would a brand logo be replaced by the one of the company owner?
BarnCas (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article). International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois (April 25, 1961). Retrieved on September 19, 2017. Would the International Harvester Company know the brand of the trucks they build? That link was posted 23;36, 17 September 2017. Sammy D III (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think different.
One person who wants International but screwed up names and stuff at the same time.
One who only says the name is International and has no other interest.
One who thinks the name is International but is afraid of somebody else's actions so he makes conditions.
One person who has not responded to posts yet.
One person who is arguing about whether all other evidence is valid over a hood ornament.
About International we have three in favor, one against, and one not answer yet.
I personally don't think there is a consensus if there are two of you. I would like more people here.
You are using a hood ornament to refute a ton of good stuff. Why?
EDIT: Are you kidding me? Your KB ornament says "International" but not "Harvester. Your own example refutes your opinion! Sammy D III (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read carefully what is written just above. If you don't understand the few concerned lines (International until the L-line, then IH after), I'm afraid I can't find a way to explain it more simply... BarnCas (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does the logo used change the name of the truck? Who knows or cares what the logo is? You.
"a single counterexample in mathematics or logic is enough to question the main assertion". You believe that a consensus has to be mathematically exact. "How many other counterexamples are present in the rest of the document you linked?" I said that there must be other exceptions. Again, you need an exact amount, a huge majority is not acceptable.
"As far as I know" Your own opinion, you have no solid evidence.
"I may be wrong, but I also see" Again, Your own opinion, you have no solid evidence.
I have provided a ton of stuff which you choose to ignore. You question huge majorities by a single item. You ignore multiple sources, many actively linked. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
BarnCas, you are an asshole who is actively preventing accuracy of Wikipedia for your own tiny opinion, your ego, and your personal like of the word "Harvester". You should start finding allies to back your obstructive shit. Sammy D III (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A logo is just that — a logo. Slinging stuff at each other does not seem to help though its hard to resist. Here is an Australian owner who needs BarnCas to sort out his choice of names 1921 International and here's another from the 1960s period BarnCas is interested in Old truck and another Travelall. What does BarnCas think about that? Would BarnCas like a few thousand more examples? or even more yet than that?
"Math"? has crept in? Eddaido (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sammy D III: Please be civil and assume good faith. It would be great if you would delete your personal attacks above. Thank you. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I would remind anyone who comes here of the evidence which BarnCas refuses to acknowledge. Instead of this evidence he has only an opinion with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
I link seventy-five years of every model truck International Harvester built, and you come up with one example to challenge the overwhelming majority of the info. The last three words in the first sentence of the exception are "International auto vehicles". "International", not "International Harvester". The exception uses both names. I do imagine there are a few other exceptions.
Of course the IHC blurb is on the bottom, they are the manufacturer who is giving information on their products.
Nobody has ever disputed who the manufacturer was. It was IHC. Nobody has ever disputed the IHC logo was on the trucks. It was. My issue is the name of the truck brand. Only. Do you have any support for as brand logo? Why is it not as manufacturer logo? And how does the name threaten the logo anyway?
You seem to be using your opinion of a hood ornament to address the name. They are two different things. The grille says "International". Do we think the word "Harvester" is used anywhere other than the builder's plate? If it was part of the brand name wouldn't it be used somewhere? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have International brocures from 1957 into Navistar. Here are some front covers: 1957 International Cab over engine VCO-405...--1967 International 400 series--International 4200, 4300, and Eagle--International 4470 Australia (a COE)--International CO Loadstar--International CO4070. There are 17 others. All identify the truck as "International". No "Harvesters on the cover, only the last page credits. Most of these trucks were built by IHC. These may have copywrite problems here, but you don't have to believe me.
Davies, Peter J. (2000) The World Encyclopedia of Trucks, Lorenz Books ISBN: 0-7548-0518-2. Page 401 is Melbourne, Australia International Harvester. International Harvester, ACCO (or is that a model?), Seddon Atkinson, International Australia, ENASA, ITAL, and Iveco are in the text as corporations but do not relate to individual trucks (ACCO?). Trucks is an ACCO G2350 which has a visible S International logo RF. In the text is International truck ACCO G(?) and International 7600. International Transtar 4670 has International across the grille. But this is Australia, I don't know them.
Page 402-403 are Chicago, Illinois, USA, International Harvester (my turf). McCormack, Deering, all the Australian companies, and Navistar are in the text as corporations but do not relate to individual trucks. All trucks in the text are International, International's, or just model numbers. None have Harvester. "the International name badge was adopted in 1914" is wrong, we know it was used by IHC in 1908. Maybe they are talking about a physical sign? But it is a ref, so we should debate 1908 vs. 1914 start. First pic is "International Harvester's early". Then to "International's" XL series cabovers have Int'l on LF and L door. Transtar cabover has Int'l over grille. Three have no clear name. Many of these pics have the IHC logo clearly visible, but that is already acknowledged.
(1973) Motor's Truck and Diesel Repair Manual (26th ed.), Motor ISBN: 0-910992-16-9. The index has "International Diesel Engines" (1224-1249) and "International" (915-953). The word "Harvester is never used in the index or either section.
I think I saw a Scout Chilton's at Half-Price Books.
How about the US military? Trucks built for the military are Internal Harvester Model xxx, so a good case for trucks built specifically for the US Military being Harvesters can be made. Prototypes and civilian types are International or International's, but some are IHC's Model. Crismon, Fred W. (2001) Modern U.S. Military Vehicles, MBI Publishing, pp. 93, 94, 113, 129, 148... ISBN: 0-7603-0526-9. uses International or International's. I don't want to skim any more pages, call this one a draw? The US Military does buy custom-built International Harvester Model trucks.
Wood, Donald F. (1998) American Buses, MBI Publishing, pp. 23, 41, 42,58, 65, 77, 96, 101, 116, 123, 127, 130 ISBN: 0-7603-00432-7. uses International or International chassis. Captions, I didn't read the text, I'm not doing buses just now. Not a lot of pics, International has always been big on school buses, not transit or highway. And these are buses or chassis, should they count?. Wait, aren't some of your chassis-cowls sold without cabs so they can take custom, including bus, bodies? Hmmmm.
I don't know if this[8] counts. It is a truck sales sight. It is not official, probably not a ref, it can only tell you what professionals who buy, sell, and operate International trucks call them.
[9]
[10]
Crismon, Frederick W. (2002) International Trucks, 2 edition, Minneapolis, MN: Victory WW2 Publishing, ISBN 0-9700567-2-9 I do not have this book but I call attention to it's title.
Haynes, Chilton and factory Scout shop manuals all say International on the cover. I don't have them, it took a couple of minutes Googling "International Scout shop manuals" to come up with a bunch. Deep research. International Scout Encyclopedia by Jim Allen and John Glancey comes up too. The cover shows International and IH's (possesive?).
I give you military tacs, but how about their engines? Doyle, David (2003) Standard catalog of U.S. Military Vehicles, Kraus Publications, pp. 101, 125, 127, 174 ISBN: 0-87349-508-X. have Red Diamond 361 or 450. Do half-tracks count (p. 369)? Red Diamond 450.


It has been suggested that I "Please be civil and assume good faith. It would be great if you would delete your personal attacks above." I do not assume good faith, this is clearly an ego deal with someone who is entirely closed to any challenge to an entirely unsupported opinion. I haver no intention of deleting anything. Just to be perfectly clear:

BarnCas, you are an asshole who is actively preventing accuracy of Wikipedia for your own tiny opinion, your ego, and your personal like of the word "Harvester".

Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Favour "International Harvester" over "International". One is going to be slightly anachronistic, for some of the content. But "International trucks" is going to get treated as "international trucks" and we're just going to find everything from Albania to Zambia dumped into it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikimedia category International trucks has been there and in use since 2008 though some things have been removed in the last 48 hours by, I suppose, one of the participants in this discussion.
So, Andy, for almost ten years there has been no problem of the kind you imagine.
...there's simply no way to tell how many problem images have had to be removed from that category over the years. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 13:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the things I have spent a pile of time on in the last few weeks is categorising International trucks by the date of their manufacture. You can access them from this page here: Category:International trucks by model year and then, in an orderly manner, make up your own mind about the need to drop Harvester from the trucks' names — from within the image and from the file name. But that's easily done by the Google test isn't it. And the category International trucks though freshly castrated proves there is no need for concern about Albanians to Zambians dumping unknown vehicles there. Eddaido (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well if you're splitting it by year, then give the right name to the right year. But I'd still call the overall group "IH". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-state our position as of now?

@DanTD: @Eddaido: @Mr.choppers: This has gotten quite long and involved. I think we may want to make a break for easier editing and understanding.

Support the brand names of these trucks being "International" without "Harvester". I believe that A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article). International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois (April 25, 1961). Retrieved on September 19, 2017. and the many International Harvester documents at [11] refute unsupported personal opinions. Sammy D III (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I can tell, just "International" indeed seems to have been the trade name used by International Harvester for their products. But, as Andy Dingley pointed out above, "International trucks" invites casual users to add all sorts of other entries. Many refer to these vehicles as International Harvesters specifically to avoid possible confusion. These categories are meant to make images findable to reasonably intelligent non-specialists. So, we have conflicting values (all valuable) which are (feel free to add if I am forgetting something):
  • Correctness of name
  • stability of categories
  • Amount of effort for negligible improvement or perhaps a deterioration
  • making things findable
I personally think that the best thing to do would be to discuss the renaming of articles such as en:International Harvester Scout, de:International Harvester Scout, or en:International Harvester K and KB Series - if other editors agree to that, then Commons would follow naturally. I have the feeling that International is preferred for Navistar era vehicles, with International Harvester being used for the earlier trucks, thereby creating a clear distinction which aids in finding things - again, that is what categories are for. Precision in naming etcetera is meant for the main pages. So I guess a mild oppose. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 13:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr.choppers: posted "From what I can tell, just "International" indeed seems to have been the trade name used by International Harvester for their products." He suggests: "I personally think that the best thing to do would be to discuss the renaming of articles". I support that.
Mr Choppers has edited International Harvester Loadstar, S Series, L Series, R Series, A Series, C Series, and Light Line pickup. He probably knows that they may be incorrectly named.
I have tried to start a discussion about International vs.International Harvester here: Are International Harvester trucks branded "International?. Maybe since Mr Choppers has edited these articles and categories could he go there and comment on the correct name of the trucks? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have tried to start a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trucks (I can't do these links right, maybe it will be fixed) and trolled every International Harvester article, maybe something will happen. Maybe.
EDIT: Why would we go to German? Is it a very busy board? Doesn't it prevents me from posting IHC docs? I would not discuss the name of a Benz truck in English. I do have an interest in Article names. Just asking, not hostile. Never mind, I got it. Sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last ten years with a category International trucks has encountered no confusion like Mr.choppers suggests. Check me Category:International trucks
A search of Australian newspapers of the 1950s (it is suggested Australia may have been different from about this time, local assembly in a temporary factory began in 1950) comes up with these results:
  • International trucks 20,927 records. Click here to view each of these results
  • International Harvester trucks 524 records. Click here

Eddaido (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

− @BarnCas: @Themightyquill: @Andy Dingley: @Bidgee:

There is not one mention of Harvester in these freshly archived pages by the National Library of Australia

Eddaido (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I have found the word "Harvester" used outside Wikipedia or sights using Wikipedia. Of course there must be many who got it wrong on their own, but it looks to me like Wikipedia is telling everyone incorrect information across the board, and people are believing it. Sammy D III (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I can testify to the strength of Wikipedia's influence in these matters. Some years ago I changed the orthography of the name of a car article in spite of the WP article's use of the (rapidly becoming popular) incorrect form. Today the redirect receives no hits at all. The public has learnt its correct name now Wikipedia has stopped peddling the wrong one. Eddaido (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So this book (International Harvester Trucks: The Complete History), written by someone who seems to know a little bit about the automotive stuff, was also influenced by wrong info provided by Wikipedia? Strangely, Eddaido knows this book and mentioned it in Sammy D III's WP talk page not that long ago, but none of them listed it in this page. Is it just a doubly forgotten reference, shall we assume good faith? Clin

Insert of Sammy D III: I couldn't get your link right. Did I have the book or did I just say "yea yea"? I don't have any International or IHC books.

But you're right, Sammy D III, and as you suggested a few lines above, could we stop playing, now? From what I read, you're now only 2 people pro, the rest being at least mildly opposed to that merge, including at least one more person in this other discussion.

Insert of Sammy D III: This is what Mr Choppers and I posted:

I think you missed this: "I have discussed this with Eddaido, then posted "Trucks built by International Harvester (and Navistar) are branded "International". This is true from the 1908 "International Gasoline Auto Buggies" [12] until the present[13]. I think Eddaido uses this as a reason for name changing, and I support him on this". Unfortunatly, after discussing it with him I encouraged him to just go ahead. I didn't think anyone would care, clearly I screwed up. He shouldn't take heat for that. Sammy D III (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sammy D III: I don't have a real problem with changing International Harvester to International, it's more concise. It's the additional problems, duplications and misnamings and inability to communicate that bother me. As for renaming, that can be done without disruptions. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the answer, sorry for my part. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will any further debate really provide forgotten arguments that would directly lead to a consensus for the merge?
For now, and for different reasons, a majority of persons in Commons (and in Wikipedia) appear to feel more comfortable with the current IH / (Navistar) International separation, even if this means "inaccurate info" according to your criteria. Please just accept it. It's maybe time to close this discussion. That question could be asked again in a few months or years, in case people would change their minds by then?
By the way, Eddaido, the International trucks category has not been "castrated" by "one of the participants in this discussion", as you write somewhere above: why not calling a spade a spade? You know perfectly that I moved the pre-Navistar categories you created as sub-categories of International trucks into the International Harvester trucks category due to the fact that you should not have anticipated the result of this discussion in your favor, as explained in your talk page.
About the main subject:  I still disagree about the merge of the two categories -- BarnCas (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what a "merge" is. You think a simple vote will be consensus about the brand of the company when you present no evidence? You continue to deny A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article). International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois (April 25, 1961). Retrieved on September 19, 2017. Would the International Harvester Company know the brand of the trucks they build? Have you even visited the link and downloaded the PDF.

What is wrong with you? This was a small and understandable mistake. Why don't you just open your mind and say "oops"? Sammy D III (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, BarnCas no I didn't know you did the castration, there is no trail (that I know of). Why do you name new image files International truck and use International alone in the description?
Yes, that was part of the reason for getting the book. It never uses that phrase again and never gives a reason. I would guess it will have been at the urging of the publisher in the hope of grabbing any more sales. If I can find an explanation I'll come back. Regards Eddaido (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, no repeat and no reason given for the choice of words on the cover. Eddaido (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sammy D III: Your aggressive inserts

Were put in the text to address specific points there. I didn't notice no signs, I will try to get that rightSammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

without signature just messed up my previous message, rendering it incomprehensible if not unreadable. I added a color background around these inserts, with your user name at the beginning, so other readers can understand who says what.

Thank you Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no problem with the fact that you apparently want to see me as your nemesis,

Why do you say that? I believe you are actively defending an indefensible position for your own ego, but I don't think you are after me other than to support your point. Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

but please let's act as the civilized people we're supposed to be.
As someone already told you some months ago,

Wow, you dug through that stuff. Did me making an Archive after that last crap make it easier for you? I had just been blanking it, but it couldn't be checked out effectively so I made that archive. If you really look you can see the problems I had making it, it took me several trys, but I got it. I thought that was up-front. No? Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please take a breath. Your life doesn't depend on the name of a Commons category, does it?

No it doesn't, especially since I don't give a rats ass about Commons, I thought people knew that. My only position is that the CORRECT name of the brand of truck is International". Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope that while focusing on wether I'm just wrong or clearly a stubborn asshole(1) (please try also: just a person trying to understand the bases of the current separation. It's certainly more close to the reallity Clin), you also understood that some other people do also prefer to keep the situation unchanged for different reasons and therefore disagree with the merge proposed by Eddaido?

"I do;n't know what a "merge" is". The second line in the first post said "The Harvester word is superfluous and misleading". That is what the conversation has been about, the word "Harvester", which is not in the brand name of the trucks. Deflecting with "merge" does not change the name brand of the truck. Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I understood from Commons rules, the current situation is: "no consensus for the merge nor even a majority in favor of it means no change in the current split".

Could you link me to where it says that a "consensus" is a pure majority, and evidence is not considered? Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And this lack of consensus / majority doesn't depend only on me,

Your math doesn't follow to me. You assume support from DanTD, who hasn't been here for a while. His last post was "I have to oppose such a move, partially because of the old ads that Mr.choppers (talk · contribs) mentioned, and partially because of the long-standing use of the "IH" logo designed by Raymond Loewy."He may have mis-understood Mr Choppers' old ads. Hardly sounds carved in stone. I am willing to assume that he is open-minded and will make his position clear if and when he wants. I have been thinking "leaned toward".
Mr Choppers has posted "I looked at the evidence (and some further old ads) and support such a renaming. This does not mean that I support any ancillary changes, unnecessary merging or misnaming the Australian vehicles. As a matter of good practice it may always be a god idea to contact editors with previous involvement,such as @BarnCas:.", "From what I can tell, just "International" indeed seems to have been the trade name", and "So I guess a mild oppose." Also other things. To me this looks like somebody who is open-minded and rational. I have considered him as an "undecided".
I invited Andy, check his talk page. I asked him to comment on the name, but he addressed the cat itself. Fine. He posted "Well if you're splitting it by year, then give the right name to the right year. But I'd still call the overall group "IH"". I don't think he will comment on the name itself, although I would like him to. I consider him "not hostile".
Your clear consensus doesn't seem so clear. I think more discussion should take place.
Eddaio asked me a question, I realized he was right and the name was wrong everywhere, and that became my mission. We talked about things that didn't interest each other. But "Harvester" was wrong. Since then we became friends with little in common.
We went somewhere, I told him I though years were stupid and he told me that Trucks in the US was stupid. Nothing but "Harvester" in common.
He wanted an admin, but I saw no wrongdoing, so I just suggested he go ahead, there was nobody here. I wish I could take that back.
Eddiao changed model names which got Mr Choppers. I apologzied and said that the timing was not his fault. Mr Choppers, even though he was having problems with Eddaio, was polite to me. I don't know that either of us are hostile to the other.
Then someone came buy who simply will not consider the evidence. Have you gone to A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article). International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois (April 25, 1961). Retrieved on September 19, 2017. and downloaded the PDF yet? There is absolutly no evidence that you have present that refutes that. The name is, and has bee since at least 1914, "International". No what your ego problem, you ARE wrong about the name. Period.
I did post the first 'asshole" out of frustration. The next was just to show that I wasn't afraid. If you had checked my page you should have known that. The admin didn't have much time, the word was pretty obvious, but they popped me for an "edit war" too. No problem, it's their job and they were busy.
You don't realize talking about trucks is fun for me.
What is wrong with you? This was a small and understandable mistake. Why don't you just open your mind and say "oops"? Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, mr.choppers said "So I guess a mild oppose" since the part you quote (see 13:44, 20 September 2017 - UTC). -- BarnCas (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1: your word, not mine lol

You reached a higher score, dear Sammy D III: you managed to delete the last part of my message with your "editing" technique. I'll assume good faith / error of manipulation, even if the deleted part contains something you apparently can't remember since it happened (the fact that mr.choppers changed his opinion from pro-merge to mild oppose) lol. Same causes, same effect: color background, and I "re-wrote" the part you deleted...
According to you, I'm wrong, close-minded and other name-callings. So why bother to try to convince me? You call it a mission(!) in your last message , but I'm certainly not worth this "abnegation" Clin
In reality, you denigrate others' opinion when not compatible with yours, keep on copy-pasting the same arguments ad nauseam and then insult your interlocutors when this technique doesn't work (but does it ever, on any subject?) before starting again the same loop. Strange technique when trying to persuade others that you hold the truth (The Truth?). For me, it just appears that you clearly can't bear when someone disagree with you. Your problem, not mine, though I think this must be hard for you in your non-digital life...
I think that you may have missed the main point of this discussion: it's not about how the manufacturer called its truck lines, it's about how Commons should categorize the related files and pages, trying to take into account users' way or working and visitors' expectations and habits. Moreover, you seem to lack most of the bases needed to participate in a collaborative work like Commons or WP. But this is not the place nor the time (nor will I ever have the required energy) to explain you these bases. As [You] don't give a rat's ass about Commons, as said in your previous message, what are you doing here, in fact???
Keep on bashing me if that does you good, then (but please do it after this message, so I won't have to correct your mess in my messages again lol). But whatever the number and length of your repetitive copy-pasting, whatever your name-callings, I won't change my mind and still disagree with the merge of the 2 categories (i.e. there are 2 categories which would be joined together if your option was the one chosen by the community. I don't know how to explain it more simply. About Consensus, please see here. For other words or concepts you don't understand, please refer to Wiktionary or to Wikipedia). -- BarnCas (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andy Dingley: @BarnCas: @Bidgee: @Chaheel Riens: @DanTD: @Eddaido: @Mr.choppers: @Shaded0: @SteveCof00: Not one single piece of evidence. Not one word. Smoke and mirrors to deflect attention from not one single piece of evidence. While the discussion could be going on like below. Sammy D III (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooops, I almost didn't notice that you were trying to steer the discussion away from the first point, the brand name and trying to change the focus to the category. You no longer discuss the actual brand name. The conversation, in which you took part in, was about the brand name. I missed some of your smoke.Sammy D III (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article). International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois (April 25, 1961). Retrieved on September 19, 2017. Sammy D III (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New merge target

Instead of moving everything from Category:International Harvester trucks to Category:International trucks or leaving the confusing status quo, I propose another target category for a double merge which eliminates the ambiguity of the word "international" in the latter: Category:International brand trucks. The flagship brand of both IHC and Navistar is "International", no matter the hood ornament or logo. Hopefully, this would keep other brands out. Other categories could follow suit. I felt Category:International brand trucks would be less confusing and ugly than the purer Category:International (brand) trucks or Category:International (truck brand). For all the vehicles branded "International", I would use Category:International brand or Category:International (brand) as the parent, which would be in the existing parent Category:International.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for you input Jeff G. There is no confusion created by the name of the category International Trucks. It has been there for almost a decade without any confusion (such as you suggest) being experienced. The word Harvester is mistakenly included in the name for the trucks. A vanishingly small number of editors are reluctant to let it (it is the subject of this discussion) go. HTH Eddaido (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One is a sub-unit of the other, possibly creating a category within the other would clear things up. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oaktree b: Currently both International trucks and International Harvester trucks are sub categories of International Harvester vehicles. The discussion arises because including Harvester in a name of the category for images of the trucks is not only redundant it is incorrect. In either / any case they are sub categories of International Harvester vehicles so I don't see any virtue in your (very welcome) suggestion. Eddaido (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stalker

Sorry guys, with all the due respect and apologies of the case; as I have found all you who know more about trucks than others, could one of you kindly tell me the brand/manufacturer of the abandoned pickup truck in File:Old pickup 02.jpg? Thanks in advance and sorry for the disturbance. --E4024 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, E4024!
The answer is in your talk page. Feel free to prefer the unidentified trucks category in Commons or the WikiProject Trucks talk page in en:WP (there are equivalent pages in other languages: de:WP, fr:WP...), when you need help to identify some trucks Clin -- BarnCas (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quote

@BarnCas: @Bidgee: @Chaheel Riens: @DanTD: @Themightyquill: @Mr.choppers: @Shaded0: @SteveCof00:

from: International Harvester Trucks (sic). The complete history. Patrick Foster. Motorbooks. 2015 Quarto Publishing Group USA ISBN 978-0-7603-4860-4

Chapter Eight, the new Navistar page 172

“On January 7, 1986, the old beloved International Harvester Company name was officially laid to rest as the company assumed its new corporate name: Navistar International Corporation. A made-up name , it combined Navi as in navigate with star, a word long used by International in names such as Paystar, Loadstar and Fleetstar. The new logo for International trucks, dubbed the Diamond Road, was an orange diamond emblem bisected by a symbolic road, to connote the new direction the company was taking. This new emblem began to be applied to trucks during April that year. The vehicles themselves would be known as International trucks, as always.”

I repeat 'International trucks, as always'

A search of eBay revealed the following usages:

  • 1056 for International trucks check me and
  • 181 for International Harvester trucks check me these results show their imprecision by displaying images of the objects they want to sell with names excluding Harvester. In addition there are children's toys named International Harvester trucks and that is a poor lead for WP to follow.

Eddaido (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Eddaido (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing conversation/start over from the beginning[edit]

Stale discussion. The nominated category is well-populated and fits well into the parent Category:International Harvester vehicles and Category:International trucks. Can we close this CFD as no consensus to merge/delete? @DanTD: @Mr.choppers: @Jeff G.: @Eddaido: --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Estopedist1: Yes.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it should be merged. Category:International trucks should be the only category, Category:International Harvester trucks has no reason to exist as has been amply proved by Eddaido and others. Or maybe place both into "International brand trucks" as proposed above? In any case, IH trucks is incorrect. FYI, in the last four years, the various en:wp articles have also been renamed without the misleading "Harvester" name. I stated earlier that if this happens then renaming should happen here as well. See major discussion here with many more editors involved. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 12:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. and Mr.choppers: is the merging valid only for trucks, or also for Category:International Harvester vehicles (we also have Category:International vehicles)?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's sort of unclear - International Harvester Corporation and later Navistar built trucks and other things sold under the International brand. I used to think otherwise, but over the years I have been forced to accept this by the relentless efforts of Eddaido and others. It seems that the Commons categories have been forked, with "International Harvester" incorrectly applied as the brand for IHC-era vehicles and "International" for Navistar era vehicles. This is technically wrong, but I can understand the reasoning for it. My gut feeling is to place all into categories simply named "International" (as this is the correct name) and to remove the division.
Before, I was concerned with other things being incorrectly placed into "International trucks". In the years since, however, this category seems to have been perfectly managable and while all of the IHC articles were renamed "International" in en:wp the sky has not come crashing down there either. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 21:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the risk of seeming spineless I concur with everything said by Jeff G. and Mr Choppers. The important issue is fixed. Regards to everybody, relentless Eddaido (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Things named after grand[edit]

There is no thing called "Grand" that things get named after. Grand just means "big". We could either delete this category or rename it to "Things named 'Grand'". Auntof6 (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete It's my understanding that we don't group things by their common name unless they are named specifically after someone or some thing. The only exception seems to be for colours (though I'm not sure why). If we want a disambiguation page at Category:Grand, that's fine. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That hasn't been my observation, Themightyquill. See Category:Hotels by name for some examples. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ughh.. you seem to be right. Category:Streets by name. I still think it's a bad idea, but I guess I can't claim precedent. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: So, Category:Things named Grand ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess that would work. Looking at what we have right now, the only other "Things named <foo>" categories we have are things named with a color (for example, Category:Things named black). If we don't mind opening the door to many more of these categories, then "Things named grand" (or Grand) would work. I would foresee an onslaught of new categories to follow the pattern, which may or may not be a problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete we probable don't want to open doors for "Things named <foo>"--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC) delete for this specific category, because there are thousands and thousands of categories with the name part "grand". In general, "Things named <foo>" is acceptable--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Minster, Thanet / Category:Minster in Thanet[edit]

Is there a maintainable distinction between these two categories?

I think one (Category:Minster in Thanet) is intended for the village, the other (Category:Minster, Thanet) for the wider civil parish that takes its name from the village. But each seems to have views of "Marsh Farm Road", or views taken near the pumping station.

I'm wary about merging them, in case people think that there is a distinction that can be systematically maintained. I don't want to destroy information, if an attempt has been made to separate the two.

Also I don't know much about any automated tools that may be at work, eg categorising incoming Geograph images or Wiki Loves Monuments images -- do these tools have an idea of where the boundary of the village is, to classify images based on their coordinates? Or only the boundary of the civil parish? (Pinging @Fae: - do you know about these?)

But it would be useful to have input on this, eg to know whether there is one category or two categories that should be targeted from Wikidata.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jheald: back in 2009 I generated all the missing categories for villages because I was uploading the Geograph images. I see in the edit summary that Category:Minster, Thanet was created based on en:Minster, Thanet. I would just merge the two, probably the best name is Category:Minster-in-Thanet. Multichill (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they can't be merged, they should be disambiguated to Category:Minster, Thanet (village) and Category:Minster, Thanet (parish) or something like that. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks User:Multichill. Out of interest, though, how are incoming WLM or Geograph images placed into appropriate (eg civil-parish level) categories at the moment?
Is there a matching based on name? Or to a Wikidata item, then going up the administrative levels until there's one with a Commons category (if the momument itself doesn't have a category)? Or is the WLM's parish held in an offsite database, with a note of the Commons category?
Just quite curious. Jheald (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I'd recommend merging the two categories. Even if one is meant to mean the parish, and the other the village - the similar names mean that distinction cannot be drawn.
If separate categories are desired, I would recommend that the village is left at Minster-in-Thanet and the parish is disambiguated with "civil parish". Civil parish should be used instead of parish as that is the formal name, and there are other types of parish that may have different boundaries.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nilfanion: @Multichill: @Jheald: @Fae:
I back the separate cats idea if enough pics are available. We are in places tending to separate a settlement from the civil parish that derives from that settlement's name. There is not much of a problem if there are few photos that apply to the settlement and the civil parish. However, settlements might be quite small and their civil parishes may within them contain further settlements, such as hamlets, estates, large farms, major roads and woods etc. which cannot be seen as part of a particular 'village' or 'town' However it is often difficult to define the boundary of a settlement that gives the parish its name i.e. at what point does the settlement become the parish, as Jheald queries. Some links through Google do provide this boundary, and if not we could make a reasonable stab at it. As for defining sub-cats as (village) and (civil parish) as Themightyquill postulates, I did try exactly this with some parishes/settlements, but (village) was considered inappropriate as Wikipedia predominates the settlement as a village in the first line of a lede, and subordinates the parish. I suggest in this case we could keep 'Minster in Thanet' as the settlement and change Minster, Thanet to 'Minster in Thanet (civil parish)', as Nilfanion suggests, as there are over 300 files between them, and places such as 'Richborough Power Station', which is miles away from the parish village could go to the civil parish. I have broken down Category:Broadstairs with its parish Category:Broadstairs and St Peters in this way. Category:High Roding shows how a small number of files doesn't require a split, and Category:Great Waltham (civil parish) where the split seemed necessary. Acabashi (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Acabashi: No objection at all from me to separate cats, if you can clearly distinguish what should be in each one. (Which would have needed quite a lot of sorting out for Minster in Thanet, at least when I looked at it). One request though, if you're splitting the categories here, please also split the corresponding items on Wikidata (or see if there's an existing item for the village, via 'What links here'), so that both the Commons categories remain well-connected, and eg can have infoboxes, and inbound links that work. Up to you to judge which item is more suitable to link to en-wiki -- sometimes it would be the civil parish, probably more often it would be the settlement, depending on the balance of content in the article. Other properties on the Wikidata item probably divide pretty clearly into which ones should stay with the parish, and which ones with the settlement. Jheald (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale discussion. @Jheald, Acabashi, and Nilfanion: I guess we have similar cases in Commons, do we? Without knowing the similar cases, I can propose possible distinction like Category:Minster (village in Kent) and Category:Minster (civil parish in Kent); disambiguation qualifiers "(village)" and "(civil parish)" can be also possible, but seems not self-explaining--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Fascist architecture[edit]

I have strong doubts about the encyclopedic value of this category, as per se there is no such thing as "fascist architecture". During the Italian fascism, in fact (as even Wikipedia explains) there were various styles, such as the rationalist, futurist and the monumentalist schools. This category brings together whatever was built during the 20s-30s in Italy and in its colonies, considering it all "fascist architecture" just because they were built under the same authoritarian regime. The Italian Wikipedia, in fact, has not an article called "Fascist architecture" but rather a section called "architecture during the fascist period" under the article "Italian architecture in the 20th century". I suggest its deprecation or even deletion, including its subcategories. Desyman (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While there is an English wikipedia article at en:Fascist architecture, admittedly, it isn't very strong. Isn't there a case to bring together some of these works with related ideological connections, somehow? Yes, its worth organizing things simply by date, but this type of category could specify something more than that. We have Category:Art approved by the Nazi regime so maybe something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Themightyquill. In my view it would be better to be consistent with existing practices, namely to categorize by date and by style. The date is already there, Category:20th-century architecture with all its subcategories, while for the style we have Category:Futurist architecture, Category:Rationalist architecture (with their subcategories), etc. To me this is sufficient. It is a dangerous enterprise to classify architectures by political ideology, if anything at least because under fascism for instance rationalist was very common in the beginning, but then rationalist architects fell in disgrace, at the advantage of more "monumentalist" ones, who corresponded more to the ideology of the ruling regime. Thus the link between the two is in my view superficial and in a number of cases even false.--Desyman (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Desyman: Just to be clear, do you feel the same way about socialist and Nazi architecture? As I said, I certainly accept that not all architecture created during fascism was ideologically motivated, but as you yourself said, some of the more monumentalist architects did connect with the ideology of the ruling regime. Does Category:Welthauptstadt Germania really not deserve a Nazi-related parent category? Just Category:Neoclassical architecture in Berlin and maybe Category:Berlin 1919-1945 ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You raise a good point. I think architecture, like any form of art (applied in this case) always and necessarily reflects and dialogues with the society and also political reality of its time. The issue is that there is not a sufficiently precise overlap to categorize all rationalist architecture in Italy as fascist, nor all architecture produced during fascism as rationalist. The same can be said - mutatis mutandis - for any other political regime. One would not call contemporary architecture in north America as "capitalist architecture" for instance. One may however envisage a category such as "Architecture in country X during the given period/regime" to underscore that, while there is a temporal coincidence, there is not necessarily an ideological linkage. I believe this could be a compromise solution, although I personally tend to lean towards the deprecation altogether. What do you think?--Desyman (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Desyman: I don't know enough about Fascist Italy so my opinion should come with a grain of salt, but I imagine that architecture, like all art, can take on an explicitly ideological propagandist purpose, particularly when created at the bequest of an explicitly ideological state (and even more so when, owing to a dictatorship, the ideology is clearly defined.) Where to draw the line between state propaganda in art/architecture and other art/architecture produced at the same time? I don't have a clear answer, so I guess we'd have to depend on scholars of art/architecture for that, like any other subject. We might include works consciously celebrated as ideological by the regime in question.
But if your intent is to avoid unfairly lumping in all rationalist architecture produced in Italy during fascism as inherently fascist architecture, then I don't think Category:Architecture in Italy during Fascism even serves your purpose. It would be better to have both Category:1930s architecture in Italy and 40s (for everything) and a well-maintained Category:Fascist architecture for those consciously fascist buildings, if they exist. If there are really no examples of architecture serving as Italian fascist propaganda (the en:Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, for example?), then delete the category entirely. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with the solution that you suggest is that in many many cases there is no objective way to ascertain whether a building was "consiously" fascist. How do you do so? By checking whether the architect was member of the party? At the time almost everyone did. By checking who paid for it? Most times this information is lost and may per se not be 100% representative. I therefore believe that a more objective categorization such as: Category:1930s architecture in Italy (and '20s, and '40s) plus Category:Rationalist architecture in Italy (and equivalent for other styles), as well as Category:Architecture in Italy during Fascism can indeed be the best option, as these categories lend themselves to less arbitrariness and "ideological celebration", the criteria for categorization are much more objective. In practice, this could be done by simply renaming the category Category:Fascist architecture with relatively little work.--Desyman (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some literature: http://www.ibtauris.com/Books/Humanities/History/Fascist%20Modernism%20The%20Arts%20Under%20Dictatorship?menuitem={DFF51E2F-C0BA-4928-ACC4-415188DCDEE8} --Alex1011 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale discussion. Enwiki has also Category:Fascist architecture and main article en:Fascist architecture. Terminological questions should be asked in enwiki, not in Commons--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Ford trucks V8[edit]

this category only contained photos of the 1953 F-100 truck, so it's unneeded. Sascha GPD (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sascha GPD: Any objections to delete this "funny" category. The category consists of two images (File:Abandoned car in Bodie.jpg and File:This is an old truck i saw in a junk yard in Green River Utah I like the Layers of paint on these old trucks . Nice Headlights - panoramio.jpg), maybe neither of them are not Ford F-100 (1953)--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom[edit]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands in 2002.

Superseded by new cat conforming with similar for all other monarchs : Category:Coats of arms of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's worth keeping the redirect, since the norm is to omit "Queen", as with the parent category. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This now conforms with other peer categories for Royal coats of arms, but no longer matches with parent category Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Long ago, I started a discussion about standardizing the use of titles and honorifics but it didn't get anywhere. @Lobsterthermidor: Generally, it's best to propose for discussion before moving. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, should match others in Category:Royal arms of England by monarch. There are also royal dukes, etc, makes it very messy if title not given. I don't see the advantage of not stating the title, we give it for peers, i.e. barons, dukes, etc.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Comissão de Assuntos Sociais (Senado Federal do Brasil)[edit]

Why do we write the name of a parliamentary commission in Portuguese? E4024 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Because it is its name and we do not make ad hoc translations, per "Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form" in Commons:Categories#Category_names. Tm (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Well, at least I imagined that it was Portuguese. I hope other people will also understand those names. I sometimes open a category for a Turkish dish in Turkish, but, for example, I write Category:Mercimek soup and not "Mercimek çorbası". In the case of the cat on "katıklı ekmek" I opened it as Category:Katikli ekmek so as not to confuse people with a small "i" without a dot (ı)... Well, I cannot agree with everything as everybody does not agree with me. Have a good day. --E4024 (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A category with such an name schould always at least have an english decription which tells what the category is for. In Portugues I could only guess what it means. --Kersti (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale discussion. @Tuvalkin and Kersti Nebelsiek: The noominated category fits well into the parent Category:Permanent parliamentary committees of the Senado Federal do Brasil. However, I guess that the disambiguator qualifier should be translated (ie Brazilian Senate, or Federal Senate of Brazil), but this is for another category-for-discussion. We can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Normandy[edit]

Difference to Category: Coats of arms of Normandie is fully unclear (same creator). -- User: Perhelion 11:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Category:Région Normandie vs Category:Normandy. A ridiculous amount of overlap for 99% of sub-categories and content. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is clear because of confusion and Coats of arms ais all about history (even before the region was recently created only in 2016). All modern French regions now use "Normandie" (not Normandy" hich remains larger and not strictly limited to France.
There a clear separation of subcategories to avoid mixing Channel islands for the region in France. No nvgation issue at all but in some cases there are overlap for coats of arms that are not only for France. There's always been a confusion about what "Normandy" was refering too, and we've seen contents categorized in France when they were in Jersey or Guernsey only. There's no easy way to distinguish both, except using the official French name when it refers to the French region.
Don't merge these categories, you'll put contents that will become parts of France when they are not. And we passed a long time to distinguish France, Jersey and Guernsey. verdy_p (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Verdy p: It should be clear that this needs an absolute clear and prominent description to both Cats. This situation is absolute hilarious. -- User: Perhelion 08:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not hilarious but there was still no clear way tro distinguish the names, except by language (for the official name of the new region). Nothing was decided on adding a prefix "Réagion Normandie" in France, for now. But Normandy has always been a larger area. Up to 2015 there was two distinct adminsitraive french regions that merged in 2016, and they were both subcategories in "Normandy", alog with the former "Channel islands" (then separated into Jersey and Guernsey). This broader category corretly refers to the 3 administrative units as subcategories and no confusion is possible. Coats of arms are all refering to the former area for centuries before 2016 (and no coats of arms in French Normandie have any legal status in the region even if some municipalities (or groups of cooperating municipalities) use them for their communication and culture, or display them on street plates or municipal bulletins or tourism office sites. verdy_p (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For lost tourists with poor GPS reception, coats of arms on street plates could be very relevant. :)   — Jeff G. ツ 03:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is, Category:Normandy should either be a disambiguation, or should only contain content specifically related to history. There's no need for all these sub-categories (Culture, Cuisine, Sports, Clocks, Squares, etc) that simply subidivide into either Normandie or the Channel Islands. Category:Normandy might be renamed Category:Normandy (historical region) to make this more obvious. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/09&oldid=691144422"