Category talk:Windmills

Windmills in the Netherlands

Hi AnRo0002, I see you are very busy with categorising windmills, but I think you are sometimes going into to much detail. I see you are splitting into municipalities, and these categories mostly contain only a few pictures. Given that the municipalities also change due to mergers, I don't really think this is worth it. Same with categories per windmill, it really doesn't make sense to create a category for only 2 pictures, I would rather think about doing it with at least 5 pictures. Can we please discuss before you continue? Regards, Akoopal (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't like what you did with Category:Windmills in the Netherlands. It was a cleanly sorted out category structure, now it is subcategory mania. Please stop and discuss this first. Multichill (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Windmills are now highly over-categorized. If you want to categorize the windmills by century: be my guest. If you want to categorize them by decade however, I must say that I don't like that. Same with municipalities. Dutch municipalities are in a process of large scale reorganization, and that process won't stop for the next couple of years. Probably, a few years from now, many municipalities will be about the same size of our provinces. Many names of municipalities are new, and even the Dutch don't know where they can find them on the map. Provinces however, change very little. Please stop over-categorizing the windmills - Quistnix (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

O.k. I will not touch the windmills in NL in future... --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Some categories might be useful but most intersections make mini categories and that's not very useful. Multichill (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know the fact about the restructurization of municupalities in the NL, so I see, my categorization of windmills by municipalities was sensless. But the other categories ("by type", "by century") might be still useful. However the categories Windmills in South Holland, Windmills in North Brabant are actually overpopulated and it should be found a way how to make all windmills visible within one page (i don't like it not to see all subcategories at one page) --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. the "mini categories" of windmills by decade will increase soon, i have just started it a couple of days ago --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

my proposal is, to continue the categorization by type (post, tower and smock mills, tjasker and wind pumps) within the provinces and to undo my categorizations by municipality --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind a little bit bigger categories, 400 pictures (so 2 pages) is still quite doable, bigger is probably to much, but we are not in that stage.

I don't mind categorisation by type or by century (not by decade) on 'the netherlands' level, but personally I would really like to see the bigger overview on provinces level, so not split to much there. What we used to do, is only create a category for a municipality when it had a lot of mills and a lot of pictures, so when it made sense. The same with categories for windmills themself, only create them when it made sense. But splitting to much means you need to know to much about a mill before you can find them.

Regarding types, if you really want to continue with that one, you should distinct between 'post mill' and 'hollow post mill' in the netherlands, they are quite different.

I saw you asking Multichil for a better place, maybe use Category talk:Windmills for this discussion? (We should not only target NL). Akoopal (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My proposal for now is : keeping the categories by provinces untouched, then the categories "by type" can be as different as possible with all subtypes of smock and post mills (with a brief description as I have done at the main type categories post, smock and tower mills), so that people with low knowledge can learn by watching... --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Akoopal, this category tree was not overpopulated. We should get rid of categories like Category:Wind pumps in Drenthe and Category:Smock mills in North Holland. This makes the category tree much to complicated. Categories like Category:Smock mills in the Netherlands should be populated. Multichill (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this indeed is the best way. Akoopal (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hollow post mill

I have emptied first "post mills in Friesland", and now a question is a hollow post mill in Dutch a Spinnenkopmolen and is this still a hollow post mill (not too large)? --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have realized the right dutch trsl: Wipmolen, but what is at least the difference to the Spinnenkopmolen --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The main difference between a Wipmolen and a Spinnenkopmolen is that the upperpart of the mill is resting at 2 points (upper and lower 'zetel') on the undertower, and the Spinnenkopmolen is only resting on the lower 'zetel', the upper one is only to prevent the upper part falling sideways. But you can categorize both as 'hollow post mill'. Akoopal (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are still partly confusing them. The 'wipmolen' is the dominent hollow post mill in the netherlands, the 'spinnenkopmolen' is a variant you only see in the north of the netherlands, mainly friesland. Akoopal (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Smock mills

Before starting dividing this category I've at first a general question. here you can see a windmill in France (there are loz of similar windmills in NL) which is - following the english definition - a tower mill, but for me, it's as well a smock mill (German = Galerieholländer, english = ?), I am right? --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am not completely familiair with the english term Smock Mill, but as far as I understand, it has nothing to do with the 'Gallery', but that it is made of wood, and has 6 or 8 sites. So no, the example you pasted, is not a smock mill. For example this one or this one are, although they don't have a gallery. The dutch term for smock mill is 'Achtkant' (for 8 sites) or 'zeskant' (for 6 sites). The dutch term for 'Galerieholländer' is 'Stellingmolen'. Regards Akoopal (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Belgium

I see you also started to work on Belgium. May I suggest to work there similair to the Netherlands, so split based on Province. On nl:Provincies van België you can find the dutch names of the provinces. There is also an English article. That only leaves Brussel, I think 'Windmills of the Brussels-Capitol Region' will be sufficient there. I don't think it makes sense to divide in Flanders and Walloon, but put everything under Belgium. Makes sense? Akoopal (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought about but once I wanted to categorize churches in Belgium by province and Belgian wikipedist@a has asked me to stop it, so I will not do it before asking the Belgians. Another point is that there are not too much images of Belgian windmills in the category. all images from Belgian windmills together are less tan images from one province in the Netherlands and there are some provinces with not one image. --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed later yes when I looked better into this after I typed my remark above. But a little bit hesitant then about splitting them on type. Maybe when a mill project similair to the one about dutch windmills will start for belgium, and then we might get more pictures. In the mean while, let's just see what happens, and not split to much. Akoopal (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

special type of hollow post mill

While I was categorizing hollow post mills I realized that there is a specific type with a gallery, which is very closed to the Stellingmolen (examples: 1, 2). Does this type has it's own name? --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

These ones are 'spinnenkopstellingmolens', there are also 3 'wipstellingmolens'. Because there are only a few, I wouldn't bother to much about them, and keep them under 'hollow post mills'. Akoopal (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

smock mill and stellingmolen

I have tried to dissolve now the difference between stellingmolen and smock mills. A stellingmolen can be a smock or a tower mill, and a smock mill can be a stellingmolen or a grondzeiler, see the categories Grondzeiler and Stellingmolen, I dont't know if there are english translation so I took the Dutch words and the names of the subcategories are a bit long, but it was the only way I could see to make the difference clear. (p.s.: I have not yet seen any simple tower mills in the Netherlands which are no stellingmolen or grondzeiler) --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what you basicly did, 4 categories 'Smock mill with gallery', 'Smock mill without gallery', 'Tower mill with gallery' and 'tower mill without gallery' is good enough. On that term, I don't think we need the separate categories 'Smock mill', 'Tower mill', 'stellingmolen' and 'grondzeiler', and place them directly under 'windmills by type'. That will be clear enough for people searching, saves one click when searching, and doesn't place you in the dilemma what to do with the hollow post mills you mentioned above. Akoopal (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good approach to me - Quistnix (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Grondzeiler is any type of windmill that can be operated from the ground. A stellingmolen has a gallery from where it can be operated. So basically, all windmills are either one or the other. There used to be at least one windmill that was operated from a ladder on wheels, but that's a very rare exception - Quistnix (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

my concerns to create at least 8 categories which are categorising each other was, that Duch people are looking for grondzeiler or stellingmolen and English people are looking for tower and smock mills but nobody is looking for windmils with or without galleries, so you start from stellingmolen or smock mill but not from tower mill without gallery --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have to think that far, if you see all the 4 cats together I think it is clear that 'with gallery' will mean stellingmolen, so you will find them quite quickly without the need for the almost empty 'in between' categories. Akoopal (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I kicked off now the categories "Stellingmolen" and "Groundzeiler" --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum but I kept "Towermill" and "Smockmill" to have common categories for similar windmills in other countries (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

't Lam, Woudsend

snipped from nl.wikipedia

Hi, why you have emptied the category 't Lam, Woudsend? now the images can't be found as "Windmills in Friesland" or "Smock mills" --Kurpfalzbilder.de 16 mrt 2009 12:40 (CET)

Hi. Initially I intended to split the category Windmills in Friesland into municipality subcats like Windmills in Wymbritseradiel et cetera, at least partially, where that makes sense. This move was in preparation of implementing that plan. Later however I found out that there seems to be some opposition against subdividing this in my opinion much too large and not very searchable cat into municipality subcats whereever that makes sense - so I decided to discuss this first. You beat me to that, so to speak. Regards, Wutsje 16 mrt 2009 19:17 (CET)

My proposal would be: subcats only if there are five or more images of a given windmill. Creating subcats for windmills with only two images, like you did, is imho completely senseless. All Frisian windmills are now (re)categorised in Windmills in Friesland and in their respective municipality cats. 't Lam however happens to have five images, so I moved those five back already to 't Lam, Woudsend. The other subcats you created in Windmills in Friesland are up for deletion, afaic. Wutsje (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule that states that a category must have more than one image. Most windmills deserve (and will eventually get) more images. Proper categories makes it easier to find and classify the mills (and link them to wikipedia articles), otherwise people would not make the effort to create them. --Foroa (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really think so, then these windmills should be categorized by location, as many of them have more than one name and the choice for one name or the other is therefore completely arbitrary. What's more: a lot of place names should not be given in Dutch, but in Frisian, because in many cases their official names are in that language. Wutsje (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Meta category

@Auntof6: - I firmly believe that this should be a meta category, as all windmills can be classified under the country they are located in, and by type. Interested to hear your thoughts as to why it should not be a meta category. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: A metacat contains only subcats that are the main thing grouped by one criterion that is stated in the category's name. Category:Windmills by country is a metacat because it contains subcats of windmills grouped by country. Category:Windmills by type is a metacat because it contains subcats of windmills grouped by type. Category:Windmills is not a metacat because it is the general category for everything related to windmills. It is not just for subcats by a specific grouping, and the category name doesn't indicate any grouping criterion. So, although it's not a metacat, you could put a {{Categorise}} template on it to encourage people not to leave files directly in this cat, but to put them in subcats. An example of a similar category is Category:Buildings. Does that answer your question? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. I've done that. Achieves much the same aim. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)