Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in July 2021.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/07.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2021-07.
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:Stilbenes

[edit]

I'm not sure what is the difference between Category:Stilbenes and Category:Stilbenoids. Both categories collect media about compounds with two benzene rings connected with an ethene-1,2-diyl bridge. According to MeSH [1] or ChEBI [2], stilbenes and stilbenoids are synonyms. While en.wiki article states that stilbenoids are polyphenolic compounds and this statement is supported in many sources, it is not however the only definition that can be found in literature and is not supported by chemical or chemistry-related ontologies (see above). In the same time en.wiki has a redirect from stilbenes to stilbenoids without any explanation and cs.wiki articles states that Stilbeny (též stilbenoidy) = stilbenes (also stilbenoids).

I propose to merge Category:Stilbenes into Category:Stilbenoids, the latter would be an equivalent of d:Q526360 and collect media about compounds with two benzene rings connected with an ethene-1,2-diyl bridge (so not necessarily phenolic) with Category:Stilbene as a subcategory. Wostr (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a small distinction between the term "stilbenes" and "stibenoids". "Stilbenoids" is, in some contexts, reserved for natural chemical compounds derived through the same biosynthetic processes (these are typically the phenolic stilbenes as well). "Stilbenes", in this context, is the broader concept that encompasses both stilbenoids and any other derivatives of stilbene, regardless of whether they are natural or synthetic. I agree that there isn't any good reason to make a distinction between these two categories, but I would suggest merging Category:Stilbenoids into Category:Stilbenes to retain the name that has the broader meaning. But in any case, I don't feel too strongly about which way the merge goes. Category:Stilbene should remain as distinct subcategory. Marbletan (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stilbenoids seem to be hydroxylated derivatives of stilbene. Hence, several (non-hydroxylated) files in Category:Stilbenoids would need to be moved to Category:Stilbenes. --Leyo 08:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an objection to simply merging the two categories, but if they are to be kept separate, I would distinguish the two categories by source. Stilbenoids would be natural compounds biosynthesized by the phenylpropanoid pathway (typically they are hydroxylated derivatives of stilbene). Stilbenes would be the parent category for any chemical derivative of stilbene. I agree that several non-natural (non-hydroxylated) files currently in Category:Stilbenoids would need to be moved to Category:Stilbenes. Marbletan (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male actors by name by country

[edit]

We already have, for example, Category:Male actors from Australia, why would we need "by name" subcategories? I thnik these can all be deleted. Mike Peel (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "by name" subcategories take the individual actor categories (which there can be hundreds of) out of the main category, and make it easier to manage that category. If they were all in the main category, it could be harder to find the subcategories that are not for individual actors. By the way, is there a particular reason you didn't also nominate the companion category, Category:Actresses by name by country? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: But those general categories are normally sorted at the top of the category list anyway, so in practice that isn't an issue? I didn't see the companion category, otherwise I'd have included that here as well. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, maybe, but not everyone knows or observes the special sorting for the general categories. Segregating them into a separate category ensures a bit more order. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: It also means an extra click, after looking to see whether it's necessary (i.e., the subcategory exists). Plus it hides the rest of the navigational tree. I still think it's worse to have it than to not. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legislative assemblies of Canadian provinces and territories

[edit]

Merge to Category:Legislatures of Canadian provinces and territories following the merge of the linked categories in enwiki, see en:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_22#Category:Legislatures_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories Fayenatic london (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Yacht Squadron, Cowes

[edit]

I believe this category should be moved to Category:Royal Yacht Squadron (no Cowes disambiguation) as there is only one yacht club with this name (the other royal yacht squadrons have a qualifier in their name e.g. Royal Nova Scotia Yacht Squadron). Unfortunately there is already a page at Category:Royal Yacht Squadron which was created recently by an editor which really serves no purpose as it only has two images and seems the editor was unaware of the existence of this category which was created in 2014. I believe the two categories should be merged at Category:Royal Yacht Squadron Elshad (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Yacht Squadron already exists, although I think it should be a disambiguation category. Any time there is potential for confusing the name of something, having a dab cat at the base name is the safest way to go. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elshad: Any objection to the proposal by Auntof6 (talk · contribs), or can we proceed? Josh (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biodiversity Heritage Library Museum Victoria collection

[edit]

Should be "Biodiversity Heritage Library Museums Victoria collection as per this discussion. Entering one of its external links on subcategories, you can confirm the BHL used "Museums Victoria collection" YuriNikolai (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the naming convention is not the best, and my proposed fix didn't address that. This is the "Museums Victoria collection" inside the "Biodiversity Heritage Library" database, and i did have to go browsing that website to deduce that, as the "library" could be referring to either institution in the current name. But for addressing that i propose creating a separate discussion, because this is just one out of 52 subcategories following the same naming convention in Category:Files from the Biodiversity Heritage Library. Maybe there we could propose adding a hyphen between the "Biodiversity Heritage Library" and the name of the collection to make things clearer? YuriNikolai (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many "Biodiversity Heritage Libraries" are there? I get the impression that there's one here in Australia, and at least one more (the Wikipedia article) in the USA. In that case, we shouldn't use the bare name "Biodiversity Heritage Library" for anything, without disambiguating it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley the Australian BHL project is a part of the American-founded BHL as per their About page, so no disambiguation needed. The Wikipedia article also mentions that, though its section on the Australian branch is a bit outdated and unsourced (I'll fix that ASAP). YuriNikolai (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canopy beds

[edit]

We need (1) clear definitions for the subcategories and discuss (2) the current category names (in English or French, plural) and (3) what the category structure should be. JopkeB (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Lit à la française.

Definitions

So far we have (open for discussion):

  • Four-poster bed: any bed incorporating four upright members that support a canopy, or placed under a separate canopy supported by four upright members [proposal from HLHJ]
  • Lit à la française: Simple canopy bed with curtains that hide the four corners. It might have four posters, but that is not necessarily, the canopy can be mounted on any cuboid structure. [composed of elements submitted by Bohème21].

To be discussed:

  • Half-tester bed‎: bed with a small canopy, about half the size of the bed
  • Lit à l'ange‎: small sub-bed-sized canopy supported at one end
  • Lit à la duchesse‎: bed with a full-size canopy, but the canopy has only to posters or is attached to the wall
  • Lit à la polonaise‎: small crownlike canopy, supported by bent poles, from all four corners
  • Lit à la turque‎: two or three scrolled bedsides, wall-mounted canopy which is smaller than the bed itself
  • Rod canopy bed: canopy bed with a rod that is fixed in the wall. Question: can a Crib with a rod also be a rod canopy bed, so the rod is not fixed in the wall but on the crib?
Category names
  1. In English or French? This seems an easy one, but it is possible that the specific French terms might not be translatable into English. Perhaps we should have category names in English for broader terms and in French for the specific terms.
  2. The category names should be in the plural [statement by JopkeB, see also Category_talk:Canopy_beds].
Category structure
  1. Do we need categories by:
    1. canopy shape (round or rectangular)
    2. size (oversize, full-size, full-width but short, and full-length but narrow)
    3. location of the canopy:
      1. relative to the bed (end, side, center)
      2. attached to the bed, on the wall or as a seperate structure?
  2. Should Category:Renaissance beds be a subcategory of Canopy beds? Or should there be two subcategories: for Renaissance beds with and without a canopy?
  3. Should there be categories for canopy beds by time period or style?

JopkeB (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like categories by both time period and style. I would suggest
Category by period
  1. Medieval (hidden frame, suspended canopy)
  2. Renaissance (ornately-carved frame, fourposters, came in with bed bolts and spread across Europe with the Renaissance)
  3. Baroque (in the broad sense, including Roccoco; enormous diversity of beds as nobility made public appearances in them)
  4. Napoleonic Empire style (the strange sorta-neoclassical Empire style)
The later ones have ruffled valences. But Empire aside, the late-1800s-and-later ones include many replicas, and I'd suggest not sub-categorizing them by period.
I too support plurals, and I think Bohème21 does too. Subject to correction, I'll consider this settled for new cats. Whether we should rename the existing cats is another question, and not one I have strong feelings on.
I'm not keen on Half-tester bed‎:"bed with a small canopy, about half the size of the bed". I know it's a conventional term, and translates "lit à demi-ciel", but squinting at an image trying to determine if the canopy is close enough to half-size or not is too subjective. "attached to the bed, on the wall or as a seperate structure?" is not subjective, but it is often hard to see whether it is attached to the wall, the ceiling, or self-covered posts on one side (that is, posts covered with fabric that matches the curtains). It's also rather similar to our current definition of Lit à l'ange.
Suggest Lit à la française: Baroque-period four-poster bed with the frame entirely concealed by cloth.
But I'm not sure that this is always what this term has meant.
  • Here it means a bed in the corner of a camper van (this seems to be the most common meaning online)[3]
  • Here it means any bed with a full-size canopy[4]
If we can find sources saying it was used only in the sense described above in the baroque, we might use Lit à la française du Baroque.
Suggestions:
  • Lit à l'ange‎: bed with a canopy supported at one end; canopy is as wide as the bed but not as long (if the canopy and bed are the same length, see Category:Lit à la duchesse)
  • Lit à la duchesse‎: bed with a canopy supported at one end; canopy is the same size as the bed (if the canopy is shorter than the bed, see Category:Lit à l'ange)
Again, we need to be sure the meanings are consistent. According to Havard, "Lit à la duchesse" seems to originally have meant any bed with its headboard against wall, the type which was later called a "lit de bout". And a "lit d'ange" may mean the same as a "lit a demi-ciel"), and it may need to not have a footboard, or sometimes it does have a footboard, And it may or may not need an exposed frame with carved crown moulding around the canopy. And it may nearly mean "lit de parade" in some periods. Someone who reads only a source from one of these periods may learn only one definition and put all sorts of photos in the category.
  • Lit à la polonaise‎:
There seem to be several types, not always distinguished.[5][6]
  • Bed with a canopy which is smaller than the bed, and supported by four smoothly- or sharply-bent poles
    • Bottom parts of the poles are straight and vertical, and the top parts are in a catenary curve, with a sharp bend at the join. The lower straight pole may continue past the joint into a finial. When the curtains are tied up at the join, they entirely hide the poles
    • Poles are S-shaped, vertical at the top and bottom and closer to horizontal in-between
    • There are four horizontal members joining the tops of the straight section of the vertical poles. I think this may initially have been considered a 'lit à la polonaise, but that perhaps later definitions would have excluded it.
  • Chambre de la Dauphine, Château de Versailles. Note horizontal pole and square upper and lower canopies. Might also have been considered a bed with a metal-frame dome surmounting it ("lit à l'imperiale", or "en dome", etc).
    Chambre de la Dauphine, Château de Versailles. Note horizontal pole and square upper and lower canopies. Might also have been considered a bed with a metal-frame dome surmounting it ("lit à l'imperiale", or "en dome", etc).
  • Schloss Eutin
    Schloss Eutin
  • King's bed, Château d'Ussé
    King's bed, Château d'Ussé
  • Louis XV style, replica
    Louis XV style, replica
  • Palace of the Marqués de Dos Aguas. Poles follow catenary curve of the curtains, and are thus invisible (except someone pulled the leftmost curtain too tight).
    Palace of the Marqués de Dos Aguas. Poles follow catenary curve of the curtains, and are thus invisible (except someone pulled the leftmost curtain too tight).
  • Could be wall-mounted and actually have half-height straight bedposts
    Could be wall-mounted and actually have half-height straight bedposts
  • Is ceiling-mounted.
    Is ceiling-mounted.
  • Probably has hidden poles
    Probably has hidden poles
  • Squarish canopy, possibly an 1800s version of a lit à la dauphine; Havard says dauphine beds were briefly popular c. 1780 and had a dome smaller than bed, with iron poles, and I think that it may be a lit a l'imperiale/en dome (see also diagram no.20).
    Squarish canopy, possibly an 1800s version of a lit à la dauphine; Havard says dauphine beds were briefly popular c. 1780 and had a dome smaller than bed, with iron poles, and I think that it may be a lit a l'imperiale/en dome (see also diagram no.20).
  • Camp-bed portable version, I think the one Napoleon died in (image)
    Camp-bed portable version, I think the one Napoleon died in (image)
  • Lit à la turque‎: A type of canopy bed. It has its long side set against a wall. It has a head- and foot-board, and sometimes a sofa-style back, too; these may have scrolled top edges. It often has bolsters (cylindrical cushions). The side-mounted canopy is smaller than the bed itself.
More concisely: A bed with a side-mounted canopy smaller than the bed itself, a headboard, a foot-board, and sometimes a sofa-style back
These have the problem that the same description is also called a "lit a deux dossiers", "lit de travers", "lit a la sultane", "lit a la romaine" (during the Napoleonic Roman vogue, if I remember right), "lit à l'anglaise", and some other things I think, according to Havard. And a "lit à la turque‎" can also mean a bed in assorted much later (1800s) turquerie styles, some of which really don't look Turkish to me!
  • Rod canopy bed: Bed with a curtain draped over a single horizontal rod, which is mounted over the bed.
How about this definition? It includes the cribs, and it's often hard to see how things are mounted in images. There are a few Empire beds with three rods, though, and it would exclude those. I'd be okay with that.
There's also "lit de travers" (a bed with one side against the wall) and "lit de bout" (bed with its end against the wall). Corner beds would also be a category, though not perhaps one we need. Alcove beds would also be a category (which exists).

Should Category:Renaissance beds be a subcategory of Canopy beds? Or should there be two subcategories: for Renaissance beds with and without a canopy?

I'd say yes to the subcat. Almost all the Renaissance beds have canopies. It's not worth splitting the rest out, especially since the canopies were sometimes separate, and may simply have gotten lost over he centuries.
I think subdividing the fourposters by integral/separate canopy would make sense. Then the separate-canopy subcat could also go under Category:Baldachins, along with similar baldachins over chairs, altars, etc., which seem to have paralleled bed canopies in style and construction.
My replies are not as well-structured as your questions, JopkeB, and I've probably missed something; let me know if so. HLHJ (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Morphology-based suggestions

Here is a draft of some morphology-based categories. Canopy shape can be round, rectangular, semi-circular, shaped like a shell... so I now think this is not a good criterion. It is also not always visible whether the top of the headboard and footboard are scrolled. I'm not against using period terms, but only if they have a manageable number of sourced meanings, for each of which we could have a subcat. We probably need some more ontology for enclosed beds where the enclosure is made substantially of wood, common in early medieval and lower-class beds, and in Chinese box beds.

  • Four-poster bed: any bed incorporating four upright members that support a canopy, or placed under a separate canopy supported by four upright members
    • Four-poster bed with separate canopy: any bed placed under a separate canopy, with the canopy supported by four upright members which are not part of the bed
    • Four-poster bed with a full-size slanting canopy: any bed with a canopy supported by four upright members of unequal heights. The canopy is as long and wide as the bed (if not, see Beds with centrally-mounted undersized canopies). There may be a portion of the canopy which is flat, but there is some portion that slopes or curves.
this would contain lits à tombeau simple, apparently a very common type for those who wanted to minimize, not maximize, the amount of fabric they used (see images below).
  • Beds with separate canopies: any bed placed under a separate canopy, so that the canopy is not actually attached to the bed
    • Four-poster bed with separate canopy: any bed placed under a separate canopy, with the canopy supported by four upright members which are not part of the bed
    • Beds with suspended or cantilevered canopies: any bed placed under a separate canopy, with the canopy suspended or cantilevered, from the ceiling, or walls, or two posts (would contain Medieval canopy beds, as four-posters had not yet been invented).
      • Beds with end-mounted canopies: any bed placed under canopy which is suspended or cantilevered from one end of the bed
        • Beds with full-size end-mounted canopies: any bed placed under canopy which is suspended or cantilevered from one end of the bed, if the canopy is the same size as the bed. (this would basically contain Category:Lit à la duchesse‎)
        • Beds with undersize end-mounted canopies: any bed placed under canopy which is suspended or cantilevered from one end of the bed, if the canopy is the smaller than the bed (this would contain Category:Half-tester bed‎s and Category:Lit à l'ange)
          • End-mounted rod canopy bed: Bed with a curtain draped over a rod, which is mounted lengthwise, horizontally over the bed.
      • Beds with side-mounted canopies: any bed placed under canopy which is suspended or cantilevered from one side of the bed
this would basically contain the contents of Category:Lit à la turque, plus a few side-mounted fullsize canopies (rare) and Side-mounted rod canopy bed
  • Beds with oversized canopies: any bed with a canopy which is longer and wider than the bed
    • Four-poster bed with separate canopy: any bed placed under a separate canopy, with the canopy supported by four upright members which are not part of the bed
this would also contain the medieval oversized suspended canopies which I think were later called lits a batard.
  • Beds with undersized canopies: any bed with a canopy which is shorter or narrower than the bed
    • Beds with undersize end-mounted canopies as above
    • Beds with side-mounted canopies (almost always undersize, not worth a subcat)
    • Beds with centrally-mounted undersized canopies: any bed with a small central canopy, a bed placed under canopy which is smaller than the bed (in both length and width?) and centered over the bed. If the canopy is suspended from the ceiling, the curtains may be supported by half-height bedposts at the corners; alternately, the canopy may be supported by full-height poles which bend inwards to the canopy. If the upper portions of the bent poles are shaped to conceal them in the curtains, the two may be hard to distinguish. The curtains on both ends may also be fixed or replaced with boards (lit à double tombeau).
this would contain most of the contents of the current Category:Lit à la polonaise, but not the Chambre de la Dauphine bed with the full-size lower canopy and smaller upper dome. It could also contain a lit à la dauphine as defined above. It could also contain pavillion beds (a ring suspended by a cloth cone hung from a single point, like many mosquito nets). These could be subcats.
  • First two images are captioned Lit à double Tombeau et à Tombeau simple
    First two images are captioned Lit à double Tombeau et à Tombeau simple
  • Lit à double tombeau?
    Lit à double tombeau?
  • Lit à tombeau simple?
    Lit à tombeau simple?
  • Partway to the next bed, but canopy is actually smaller in both dimensions
    Partway to the next bed, but canopy is actually smaller in both dimensions
  • Chambre de la Dauphine, Château de Versailles. Note horizontal pole and square upper and lower canopies. Might also have been considered a bed with a metal-frame dome surmounting it ("lit à l'imperiale", or "en dome", etc).
    Chambre de la Dauphine, Château de Versailles. Note horizontal pole and square upper and lower canopies. Might also have been considered a bed with a metal-frame dome surmounting it ("lit à l'imperiale", or "en dome", etc).
  • 1909 USA; original four poster bed at Warner House (completed c. 1718), Portsmouth, New Hampshire (photograph published in 1909).
    1909 USA; original four poster bed at Warner House (completed c. 1718), Portsmouth, New Hampshire (photograph published in 1909).
  • 1968 USA; just for contrast, we'd simply call this a four-poster, I think.
    1968 USA; just for contrast, we'd simply call this a four-poster, I think.
  • Rod canopy bed: Bed with a curtain draped over a rod, which is mounted horizontally over the bed.
    • End-mounted rod canopy bed: Bed with a curtain draped over a rod, which is mounted lengthwise, horizontally over the bed.
    • Side-mounted rod canopy bed: Bed with a curtain draped over a rod, which is mounted widthwise, horizontally over the bed.
By visibility and decoration of frame
  • Canopy beds with concealed frames
this should probably contain Medieval and Baroque subcats. Baroque canopy beds with concealed frames would, I think, be something like Bohème21's definition of Lit à la française.
  • Canopy beds with exposed frames
    • Canopy beds with fully-gilded frames (a Baroque thing)

HLHJ (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources ???

@HLHJ: Bonjour, je t'accorde l'excuse de la bonne fois, et de l'enthousiasme, mais tu t'emballes. Il n'est pas possible de procéder de cette façon. Tout d'abord on ne peut pas tout traiter à la fois et sauter du coq à l'âne. Il est impossible de répondre à tes interrogations qui coulent comme source et de corriger les méprises. Ensuite je crois, je suppose, je présume et je décris ce que je vois, ne sont pas des arguments admissibles. Le principe du sourçage est autant valable pour les définitions sur Commons que dans les articles de Wikipedia. Mais bon, nous sommes sur une page de discussion. Je regrette sincèrement si je te freine dans ton élan, mais tu n'as pas (ou pas encore) l'oeil assez averti pour ce genre d'exercice. Il y a des choses que tu ne vois pas, des styles que tu ne reconnais pas. Un lit avec un dais (baldaquin en étoffe) INDEPENDANT des chevets dont le drapé retombe en formant une ligne concave et non pas convexe, et un lit qui n'a qu'un seul chevet (de tête) n'est pas non plus un lit à la polonaise. Il faut aussi tenir compte du fait qu'il existe, notamment dans des manoirs et petits châteaux un nombre incalculable de lits à baldaquin bricolés à partir d'éléments éparses (une couronne de baldaquin trouvé dans un vieux coffre, un parement de lit conservé dans un placard, un lit abandonné dans un grenier, c'est tentant de s'en servir pour inventer la chambre de Madame la Marquise X....). Il y a des lits posés dans le mauvais sens (les lits de bout deviennent lits de travers et vice-versa, les lits à la polonaise, initialement de travers ou en alcôve placés au milieu de la pièce parce qu'ils sont si spectaculaires, etc....). Tu ne peux pas te fier à ce que tu aperçois au premier coup d'oeil. --Bohème21 (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bien sûr, Bohème21, mais ils nous faut de définitions opérationnelles, et du sourçage pour les définitions non-déscriptives. J'ai essaiyé de sourcer les définitions non-déscriptives du Baroque, et ils me ne semblent pas consistante. Tout traiter à la fois est bien ûtile pour une ontologie déscriptif (on trouve ansi les trous), et pour une ontologie déscriptif des fiches visuelles, il faut décrire ce qu'on voit. Je crois que tu n'est pas d'accord avec une ontologie déscriptif en principe; ai-je raison? Quand je dit je crois, je suppose, je présume, avec source ou des opinion des autres, j'invite des corrigements; humilité, quand j'essaie d'interpréter lexicographiquement des sources non-lexicographiques, écrit en le français d'antan, me semble convenable. :)

Un lit avec un dais (baldaquin en étoffe) INDEPENDANT des chevets dont le drapé retombe en formant une ligne concave et non pas convexe, et un lit qui n'a qu'un seul chevet (de tête) n'est pas non plus un lit à la polonaise.

Oui, mais ça ne se voit pas. Si il y a une image où on ne sait pas si le dais est independant, ou on ne voit q'un seul chevet, it faut qu'on la catégorise quand-même. Sourtout si c'est une peinture, c'est bien possible qu'on ne trouve aucunes sources clàrificantes. Des images des lits à baldaquin bricolés, comment est-ce que on les catégoriserait? HLHJ (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dans la Category:Canopy beds, sans hésitation. --Bohème21 (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour HLHJ. Moi, je le vois pour en avoir comparé beaucoup. Je peux souvent le déduire de la configuration et du style du lit. Il faut restreindre le descriptif au minimum. Vous voyez bien que même plongé à fond dans le sujet, vous n'arrivez pas à vous en sortir et c'est normal. Il y a autant de divergences que d'artisans d'art créatifs qui innovent à chaque commande. Pour analyser voire expertiser un lit, il faut savoir, avoir l'oeil et l'habitude, on ne peut pas deviner. Vous avez du mal à analyser les lits correctement. C'est aussi compréhensible. C'est à la 500e analyse que vous commencerez à voir d'emblée si vous avez probablement devant vous un "vrai" lit du XVIIIe siècle/une copie conforme ou bien un vilain pastiche où encore une création moderne qui reprend le vocabulaire stylistique des lits anciens. Si le descriptif (Commons) ne se limite pas aux quelques caractéristiques simples, comment voulez-vous qu'un contributeur comprenne quelque chose ? De toute façon, bon nombre de contributeurs se fiche où l'on catégorise les photos. Rare sont ceux qui sauront le faire correctement quand on arrive aux finesses de l'arbre des catégories ce qui est ici le cas. Je le redis : ce n'est pas une affaire d'amateurs.
Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous voulez à tout prix mettre une étiquette à chaque lit, alors que c'est impossible : il y a trop d' "inclassables". Il y a des centaines de lits que des experts hésitent à attribuer. Dans le doute, ils s'abstiennent. Pourquoi ne voulez-vous pas laisser les inattribuables dans la category:Canopy beds où ils sont parfaitement et sans erreur possible à leur place ? Il y a des catégories bien plus volumineuses que celle-là.
Voilà à peu près comment il faut procéder : analyse de 1.) Caractéristiques et forme du lit, 2.) orientation habituelle (elle est parlante, mais il y a pleins d'exceptions et des contre-emplois), 3.) forme et fixation habituelles du dais/baldaquin ou de l'impériale, 4.) caractéristiques, qualité et drapé/retombée de la parure ou garniture (étoffe, tissu ; il n'y en a quasiment plus d'origine). Je ne peux pas vous dire mieux ni donner ici un cours d'histoire des arts décoratifs.
Lit à la turque. Ils sont rares et n'existent qu'au XVIIIe siècle. Je l'ai déjà dit : vous avez déversé pêle-mêle dans la catégorie correspondante tous les lits à deux retombés (en tente si vous voulez bien, mais ce n'est pas un terme adapté) qui n'en sont pas. Ramenez-les svp dans la category:Canopy beds et enlevez-les svp d'urgence de l'article en:Lit à la turque. Le seul "vrai" lit à la turque (à trois dossiers), dont j'ai repéré l'image est classé au début de la catégorie adéquate (lit de Madame Victoire à Versailles). J'ai inscrit l'attribution dans le descriptif du fichier. Il y en a un deuxième à deux dossiers (Vaux-le-Vicomte) dont il n'est pas précisé s'il a perdu son dosseret ou s'il n'en a jamais eu. Je quitte Commons pour une dizaine de jours. Bon courage et abstenez vous svp si vous n'êtes pas à 100 % sur de ce que vous écrivez ou faites. Merci. Bien à vous, --Bohème21 (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, j'ai parfois un peu de mal à tutoyer et ce n'est significatif de rien et je ne vois aucun inconvénient à être tutoyé. Bien à toi, --Bohème21 (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C'est de rien, Bohème21, je parle plusières langues avec des conventions de tutoiement differentes (y compris l'Anglais!), alors j'essaiye de m'accorder au conventions locales mais il me faut une sensibilité assez flexible.
Pourquoi faut-il restreindre le descriptif au minimum?
Les définitions où on faut se demander si le lit n'a jamais eu de dossier, où des choses semblables, sont d'importance, on peut bien les decrire à Wikipédia, et dans le descriptif du fichier. Mais commes catégories fonctionelles pour la classification des images, je ne les trouve pas si utiles. Si il faut s'expertiser externement, il y aurait toujours des gens ignares qui mécatégoriseront des images à nouveau. Si le descriptif de Commons ne se limite pas aux quelques caractéristiques simples, comment veut-on qu'un contributeur comprenne, sans un cours d'histoire des arts décoratifs et 500 analyses? Ce n'est pas à attendre; Commons, c'est bien une affaire d'amateurs. Il faut que les descriptions des définitions catégoriques sont suffisante pour expliquer au monde si une image y passe ou non. Je tiens alors au catégories définées par des caractéristiques simples.
Et puis, si mêmes les savants n'on aucun déscription où définition claire et consistente pour un nom, les catégories ne serveront même pas les expertes. Si ils ne s'hésitent et s'abstiennent pas toujours aux mêmes instances, on aurait des catégories controversées. Je n'ai trouvé aucune déscription où définition consistente pour plusieurs des ces noms. Si on peut les écrire, des telles déscriptions où définitions, avec des sources supportantes, on peut bien les utiliser comme noms de catégories. Mais sinon, non. Rien nous oblige d'utiliser des mots d'atan si ils ne nous servent pas. Ils sont que des mots et pas des formes platoniques, et la vocabulaire historique ce n'est pas toujours l'ontologie le moins ambiguë.
Mais essayons d'écrire des définitions sourcées et non-ambiguë pour les mot historiques, et des définitions de caractéristiques simples. On peut les utiliser tous les deux. HLHJ (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Translation
@HLHJ: Rebonjour. Je suis parfaitement consciente que la langue sur Commons est l'anglais. Notez bien que je ne fais pas l'éloge de la langue française, mais dans certains cas, elle est incontournable. Ce qui vaut pour le sourçage des définitions est valable aussi pour les traductions. Il faut apporter la preuve qu'elle est correcte. On ne peut pas simplement coller une traduction littérale (du mot-par-mot) sur l'article d'un meuble. Pour un historien des arts décoratifs de langue anglaise et dans des ouvrages spécialisés publiés en anglais, le lit à la polonaise reste un lit à la polonaise, il devient éventuellement un bed à la polonaise (mais c'est très discutable de mêler les deux langues). En aucun cas, le lit à la polonaise n'est dénommée Polish bed (???!).
@Túrelio: Il en va de même de la duchesse brisée, en anglais duchesse brisée[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] devenu sur Commons Category:Broken duchesses (furniture) (???!) (voir ici).
Où est-ce que vous allez chercher ces désignations ? Ca pourrait être drôle, mais pour moi c'est juste affligeant. Pourriez-vous svp revoir et réparer ça ? Merci beaucoup. Bien à vous, --Bohème21 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Les emprunts du français sont tout a fait incontournable en anglais, et je ne trouve pas que les traductions comme "Polish bed" sont préferables. "Beds behind balustrades", c'est plûtot une description. Mais ca ne s'attend pas qu'on comprend lit à la polonaise sauf idiomatiqument, égale si on parle français. Essayons une traduction du definition du lit à la polonaise?
Français : Lit de travers ou d'alcôve à deux chevets de même hauteur et muni d'un petit dais souvent arrondi qui soutient des rideaux attachés par des embrasses aux niveaux des pieds ou de demi-colonnes métalliques. Apparu au XVIIIe siècle.
Assez littéralment:
English: A bed set with the side against a wall, or in an alcove[?], with the head- and foot-boards at the same height, with a small, often rounded canopy. This canopy supports curtains, which are tied back by curtain loops at the level of the base, or at the level of half-height bedposts. Appeared in the 18th century.
Librement:
English: A bed with a small, often rounded canopy, supported by curved metal poles, which may be mounted on partial-height bedposts. This canopy supports curtains, which are tied back by curtain loops to the poles or bedposts. The bed generally has identical head- and foot-boards. Appeared in the 18th century (1700s).
Est-ce c'est correctement traduit? Avons-nous des sources pour cette definition? HLHJ (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ↑ Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus : French chaise longues characterized by the foot end that is surrounded on three sides by a low curving back.
  2. ↑ Merriam Webster] : a chaise longe with arms that was poplar in 18th century France.
  3. ↑ Oxford dictionaries : a chaiselongue resembling two armchairs linked by a stool.
  4. ↑ Infoplease : a daybed having a rounded, partially enclosed head and usually a similar foot, sometimes made in two or three pieces able to be used separately.
  5. ↑ dictionary.com : a daybed having a rounded, partially enclosed head and usually a similar foot, sometimes made in two or three pieces able to be used separately (duchesse brisée)'.

Proposal, preliminary conclusions

[edit]

HLHJ, Bohème21: Thank you both for your extensive contributions!
I think so far we have for Commons:

  1. Definitions:
    1. Four-poster bed: any bed incorporating four upright members that support a canopy, or placed under a separate canopy supported by four upright members.
    2. Lit à colonnes: a canopy bed in solid wood with richly sculpted columns that remain visible even when the canopy is adorned with curtain walls. A Lit à colonnes might have four posters or two posters. [Added on 21-2-2022, copied from Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Lit à la française#Conclusions]
    3. Lit à la française: Simple canopy bed with curtains that hide the four corners. It might have four posters, but that is not necessarily, the canopy can be mounted on any cuboid structure.
    4. Lit à l'ange‎ = "lit a demi-ciel" = "half-tester bed': bed with a canopy supported at one end; the canopy is as wide as the bed but not as long, about half the size of the bed.
    5. Lit à la duchesse‎: bed with a canopy supported at one end; canopy is the same size as the bed (if the canopy is shorter than the bed, then it is a Lit à l'ange).
    6. Lit à la polonaise‎: Bed set with the side against a wall or in an alcove, with an often rounded canopy which is smaller than the bed, with the head- and foot-boards at the same height, and supported by four smoothly- or sharply-bent poles. The canopy supports curtains, which are tied back by curtain loops at the level of the base, or at the level of half-height bedposts. The canopy looks like a crown. Lits à la polonaise appeared in the 18th century.
    7. Lit à la turque‎ = "lit à deux dossiers" = "lit de travers" = "lit à la sultane" = "lit à la romaine" = "lit à l'anglaise": A type of canopy bed with its long side set against a wall, the side-mounted canopy is smaller than the bed itself and it has a headboard, a foot-board, and sometimes a sofa-style back.
    8. Rod canopy bed: Bed with a curtain draped over a rod, which is mounted horizontally over the bed.
  2. Category names
    1. Plurals
      1. Category:Lit à la française → Category:Lits à la française
      2. Category:Lit à l'ange → Category:Lits à l'ange
      3. Category:Lit à la duchesse → Category:Lits à la duchesse
      4. Category:Lit à la polonaise → Category:Lits à la polonaise
      5. Category:Lit à la turque → Category:Lits à la turque (redirected to Lit à la turque)
      6. Category:Rod canopy bed → Category:Rod canopy beds (I changed this already this morning)
    2. Main categories in English, subcategories in French, see names in Definitions above.
  3. Category structure
    1. Renaissance beds should be a subcategory of Canopy beds.
    2. Subdividing the fourposters by integral/separate canopy would make sense; separate-canopy subcats should also go under Category:Baldachins. Question: What would be proper category names? Category:Fourposters with integral canopies and Category:Fourposters with separate canopies? I see we have already Category:Beds behind balustrades, is this sufficient?
  • Four-poster bed
    Four-poster bed
  • Lit à la française
    Lit à la française
  • Lit à l'ange
    Lit à l'ange
  • Lit à la duchesse
    Lit à la duchesse
  • Lit à la polonaise
    Lit à la polonaise
  • Lit à la turque‎
    Lit à la turque‎
  • Rod canopy bed
    Rod canopy bed

Questions
Do you agree? Did I overlook/forget something? Do you have any addidions? Are these indeed all the sorts of canopy beds we can think of that need categories? Are the first names in the definitions indeed the category names we will use in Commons, are they the most common used ones? Do we need to make any changes in these definitions or any other changes? Are the photos correct, do they indeed show examples of the captions? Is this workable in Commons? JopkeB (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work organizing and summarizing, JopkeB. Category:Fourposters with separate canopies would be mostly things from Category:Renaissance beds, I think. Category:Beds with separate canopies would also hold beds with a canopy not cantilevered, not held up by posts, but tied to and hung from the ceiling or similar.
There are beds with isolated curtains hanging from one or more poles, attached to the wall or ceiling-beams (hot climates, rarer). Then there are beds with a suspended concealed rectangular frame supporting a horizontal cloth canopy and, apparently on parallel poles just below, curtains, which are often tied and turned inside-out, so they form a pouch and don't trail, revealing a lack of posts. This is the standard medieval canopy bed, until replaced by the four-poster in the Renaissance. There are also a suspended round canopies (like modern mosquito-nets). And some of the canopies of lits à la duchesse and lits à la turque‎ etc. are also hung from the ceiling, which may not be obvious.
  • First few years of the 1300s
    First few years of the 1300s
  • Curtained bed, late 1430s.
    Curtained bed, late 1430s.
  • 1410s
    1410s
  • Mid-15th century
    Mid-15th century
  • 1450s, oversized canopy
    1450s, oversized canopy
  • 1460s
    1460s
  • Single-point suspended canopy
    Single-point suspended canopy
Subject to correction, I think Bohème21's definition of a lit à la française would always have four supports, one at each corner. If we define it with "It might have four post[er]s, but that is not necessarily, the canopy can be mounted on any cuboid structure", then that would mean that the cat included, for instance, medieval suspended-canopy beds, and lits tournantes, which are like lits à la duchesse but with a cantilevered three-sides-of-a-rectangle tringle that carries curtains around the foot. However, the most common modern English use of lit à la française seems to be to describe a completely different layout of bed in a caravan/camper-van/recreational vehicle. So I'm not a fan of this name. The other French names have similar problems with meaning different things at different times/contexts.
And, for instance, some of the rod-canopy beds are called by their sources "Lit à fleche", because of the Empire fashion for styling the rods like arrows, including at least one with a rod not styled as an arrow; others aren't. One seems to have paired tringles as a rod... not sure if that counts. Gah, this is complex. HLHJ (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HLHJ: thanks for your remarks. So, what would be correct category names and a good category structure? JopkeB (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JopkeB, I don't think there is a single set of "correct" category names, and there are many possible "good" ones, and no perfect ones. Anything that makes it clear to a layperson where an image should go would be fine by me. I'd suggest dividing along technological lines where possible (for instance, roll-up unfastened bedslats and the invention of bed bolts at the beginning of the Renaissance making beds portable and causing elaborate carved bedsteads instead of rough wooden frames mostly or entirely hidden by cloth), and not using centuries-old French fashion terms which have morphed through multiple meanings as category names (descriptions saying "in the 1790s, this sort of bed was called..." or similar seem unproblematic). HLHJ (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A new attempt

[edit]

A new attempt to come to acceptable category names in English for subcategories of Category:Canopy beds:

  • Beds with rectangular canopies
    • Beds with full-sized rectangular canopies (Subcategories: Four-poster beds, Canopy beds with woodcarved posters [addition on 6 December 2021] , Lits à la française, Lits à la duchesse) + rename Lits à la française to prevent misunderstandings → Lits à la française (canopy beds)
    • Beds with full-width, short rectangular canopies (Subcategories: Lits à l'ange, Half-tester beds)
  • Beds with non-rectangular canopies
    • Lits à la polonaise
    • Lits à la turque‎
  • Rod canopy beds
  • Side-mounted canopy beds: with the long side of the bed against the wall, the long side is open (it might look like a sofa with a canopy above it) [addition on 6 December 2021]
  • Beds with canopies not attached to the bed [addition on 6 December 2021]

HLHJ, I leave the categories about Beds by time period to you. [addition on 6 December 2021]

Would this make sense? At least it would be clear to me, as a layperson. Would you please check whether the new names are correct English?
Anyone who needs more angles can expand this set to what he/she likes (for example with the canopy being attached to the wall or to the bed, or with other technical aspects). JopkeB (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US tourists in Thailand

[edit]

i suggest these cats be named "tourists from xx in yy". RZuo (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why? They're grammatically fine as they are. This is English language, not German, not that awful Wiki-pidgin of German idioms and structure translated bizarrely word-by-word into English. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andy SHB2000 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's German about "tourists from xx in yy." "People from X" is the default for commons for reasons of clarity, not because of any preference from Germans. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Category:Tourists from Germany in Thailand would be painfully wordy, but upon typing it out here it seems totally fine to me, and as themightyquill pointed out, that is by far the most common way of naming categories like this around here, so I support it. If we must keep the adjective form, we should at least use an actual adjective such as Category:American tourists in Thailand. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ritsa-Auadhara National Park

[edit]

duplicate of Ritsa Relict National Park, this is the same national park Alaexis (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis: Category:Ritsa-Auadhara National Park and Category:Ritsa Relict National Park to be merged into Category:Ritsa Strict Nature Reserve per enwiki en:Ritsa Strict Nature Reserve. Am I correct?--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Estopedist1, I think the correct name is Ritsa Relict National Park as this is how it's named on their official site ([7]), so I would use that category. But it doesn't matter too much, it's more important to have all the images in one category. Alaexis (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malaya

[edit]

This category seems to be a duplicate of Federation of Malaya. However, according to Wikipedia, the peninsular part of Malaysia is also called Malaya. Should this category be redirected to the Federation of Malaya or the Peninsular Malaysia? Disambiguation is another option. Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Rail Mk3 coaches of Virgin Trains West Coast

[edit]

Duplicate of Category:British Rail Mk3 coaches of Virgin Trains. YTRK (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind 'Virgin Trains' should be a parent of the other three. Whatever we do, it needs to be reflected across all the Virgin rolling stock categrories. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattbuck:

  • Hmm. It does seem that you're right. The articles on Wikipedia seems to have gone the same path, and a look on their websites through waybackmachine revealed that Virgin West Coast and Virgin CrossCountry shared the same website under the name Virgin Trains, with their separate names nowhere to be seen. Meanwhile though, when Virgin Trains East Coast started its operations, Virgin West Coast kept the plain Virgin Trains brand to itself, with Virgin Trains East Coast having its own branding and website.
What with the high level of integration between Virgin West Coast and Virgin CrossCountry and the difficulty in distinguishing their rolling stock, an umbrella category would indeed come in handy. Whether it's better to include Virgin Trains East Coast is debatable, and how to treat that umbrella category could be a tricky question.
As for the latter part, I couldn't agree with you more.--YTRK (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YTRK, Andy Dingley, and Geof Sheppard: Has this been resolved at this point so we can close this? Josh (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As no one ahd other suggestions I have made the change as discussed - British Rail Mk3 coaches of Virgin Trains now has three subcategories for the three franchises. I think I picked up all the other related categories but someone might want to check. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/07&oldid=817748262"