Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/09/Category:Plymouth

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Plymouth

[edit]

Can we move this to Category:Plymouth, Devon, and make this the disambiguation category? The other day I cleaned out a bunch of files that were for Plymouth, Massachusetts, and I don't think it's the first time I've done that. If this page were the disambiguation category, it would be easy to see miscategorized files at Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories.

I know that Wikipedia has a practice of making the plain, unqualified name of an article be for the primary meaning of a term, but I don't think that works well for categories here. With a Wikipedia article, you can start reading and figure out from the text whether the article is about the thing you wanted. With categories here, that's harder, maybe even impossible sometimes. Because of that, I think we should qualify most category names when disambiguation is an issue. This was the solution when Category:Hyde Park was changed to a disambiguation category, and Category:Hyde Park, London was created for the park there. I think this category is a good candidate for a similar solution. Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose/Comment this is the original Plymouth, however it might not satisfy the category primary topic criteria, see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/01#Disambiguation of categories. I think 1 of the points is that other Plymouths use "Placename, State" anyway (but given that you found images for MA indicates that this is not always done. Clearly Plymouth isn't the same as Lincolnshire, Massachusetts, London, Abraham Lincoln etc which are just obviously unquestionably primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that other places specify the state. They have to, since this category without a qualifier exists. The problem isn't as much with the other category names as it is with how things end up in categories. People put them there, and that's subject to human error:
  • Sometimes they don't realize there's more than one thing with the same name.
  • Sometimes they use some kind of autocomplete software or function (such as HotCat has) and accept the first category name suggested.
My suggestion is an attempt to minimize incorrect categorization due to these by using more-specific categories. I don't believe that Wikipedia's primary topic rule works well for media, as I said above. On Wikipedia, if you find the article on "Plymouth" when you're looking for Plymouth, Massachusetts, all you have to do is read a little of the article to see that it's not the one you want. Here on Commons, if you find the category Category:Plymouth, you can't necessarily tell which one it's for from the contents. Besides all that, bulk upload processes are notorious for adding categories based on any keywords they find. If the unqualified name is a disambiguation category, no one can be misled by files in it. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other places specify the state because w:USPLACE specifies to always do this, for example Category:Missoula, Montana and Category:Bothell, Washington even though Missoula isn't named after something called "Missoula" and Bothell is named after "David Bothell". However as you point out people adding the category might not use the "City, State" (or look for it) when adding images. If the category contains images that are not for Plymouth, Devon then the is bad for readers looking for Plymouth, Devon. I agree that this one probably should be renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The principle of "primary topics" is just as relevant to Commons as Wikipedia, but the circumstances where that it should be applied are different. The same difficulties that are posed here by Plymouth also exist with, for example, Category:England but no-one would seriously propose that move, even though there are multiple Englands. The difference is merely a question of scale, which is what primary topic seeks to address.
I'd disagree with you cannot immediately tell what this category is about from its contents, it clearly has a sentence describing its content at the top of the page.
(Using the Wikipedia terms "reader" and "editor" for clarity) The goal should always be to maximise benefit for the reader - disambiguation should happen if it is to the benefit of the reader. It should not happen merely to make life easier for us, for example to overcome the limitations of the categorisation tools, if this has a negative impact to readers.
In this case, the category is well-maintained and incorrectly placed files get moved along relatively quickly - which is a low-level admin overhead, and that "pollution" has minimal impact to readers. There would be significant admin associated with the move (eg fixing links from other projects, adjusting sub-category names), and the ongoing overhead will be comparable (all files in the dab category will need review, and most files placed in the cat do relate to this subject). On balance, I think the administrative benefits are outweighed by the costs; just looking at implications for editors, the status quo should be maintained.
So to me that means the category should be moved if and only if benefits to readers after other Plymouths outweigh the negative impact to those after this one. In the context of imagery, I am most concerned about those after Plymouth vehicles than those after another location.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "from the contents" I meant the files, not the description. The description doesn't govern what goes into the category, it only governs what should go into it. If there is, for example, a photo of a generic-looking street and nothing in the file name or description to say which Plymouth it is, you wouldn't be able to tell without great difficulty (unless you happened to recognize what was in the photo). Also, not everyone looks at category descriptions when categorizing (that's probably part of the problem), and automated upload processes probably don't, either, when they're picking keywords out of a file.
Finally, I think making it easier for editors to get things in the right categories would make things better for readers, because the readers could be more confident that the files in a category really were for what the category said they were for. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the general principle, that if categorisation is right, the odds of errors are lower which are of benefit to the reader. However, the categorisation structure should not be built to the weaknesses of the tools, but to how humans search the site. You can make the same argument can be made for every potentially ambiguous category and, rightly, many many ambiguous topics will stay at the base page name - as the inconvenience to people looking for that base topic outweighs the error risks (think London, Paris, Moscow..). I know Plymouth is different to those, but why does it matter for categorisation purposes?
With the particular case here, there is near-zero risk of people using files wrongly as the top-level category is pretty much empty and well-maintained. The files you removed were less than one week old before they were correctly recategorised, and that's probably typical. With the example of a generic street scene: If you can tell what Plymouth is in, categorisation is easy regardless of where it starts (as its not buried among hundreds of files here). If you cannot determine which Plymouth it is in, then it shouldn't be in any Plymouth cat but should instead be in an unidentified location cat. It doesn't matter if it started in the cat for a specific place or a dab, it will get to the corrected location pretty quickly. And if the most likely subject is not at the base name, more files will start off in the wrong place.
I am fairly neutral to the idea of a move on this, but I'd like to see a positive case to move before I could support, as any such move would result in a lot of labour to do correctly. And if moved, I would certainly want to see all aspects considered and not just have the category moved and no other edits elsewhere.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But even though the files had been in for less that a week, that's still that amount of time the category had reduced benefit for our readers, clicking through a DAB is hardly difficult for our readers is it? While if there are incorrect files then that reduces the quality drastically of the readers experience. Also you have to click on the hatnote and then find the one you are looking for with a PT, without one you can click directly on the one you want without having to load Devon as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole premise of Primary Topic is cost-benefit analysis, as clicking through a dab does have a small, but permanent and ongoing cost. When that cost outweighs the benefit of a dab page you have a primary topic (certainly the case for London or France, both ambiguous topics).
That cost is higher when readers encounter the dab when they really shouldn't. The most important route for people who want the images in the category is following w:Plymouth, not using the Commons search bar. This is why I'm opposed unless there is a real tangible benefit: Fixing the incoming links from all wikimedia projects is a complex task, and if its not done properly the harm from that will outweigh the gains. That's in addition to the internal admin on Commons such as re-naming the subcategories.
Incorrect files can be problematic, but the risks here are minimal - none in the past couple of months? That's at worst minor irritant level, so is not a big enough issue to justify a move. The best way to assist those searching for "other" Plymouths would be to remove the Citybus galleries that flood the search returns.
The rules for determining primary topics on en.wikipedia do not necessarily flow through to Commons, nor do the results. However, what's the real, substantive benefit to carrying out a move? If there isn't one I will say no move.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that's much less than having to go through an article that's not relevant to what you're looking for. However its not completely unrelated as it appears that all the other meanings derive from it.
Indeed because we have the gallery even if people type "Plymouth" into the search box they end up there instead so if the category was replaced with a DAB at the base name people would not be affected that way. If moved the link to commons from WP would simply be updated so readers would still end up in the right place. Fixing the links and moving the categories surely wouldn't be too difficult and links that weren't fixed would still lead to the DAB which could list Devon right at the top (the harm really occurs when people move a category without leaving a redirect or DAB page for people who come from other sites).
The rules are usually higher than on Wikipedia for determining primary topics, Plymouth has probably been the most debated primary topic of all English locations on Wikipedia so its strength would appear to be a lot weaker still here (like the points raised here). As I said I am neutral on the move because of the points you have made as well. Comments such as this and this and this for example show that it didn't meet Wikipedia's primary topic criteria in 2010 although there were many arguments for it being primary (such as historical importance). However primary topic has been revised so how it appears it does see for example here as "long-term significance" requires substantially greater "than any other" while "usage" requires "much more likely than any other" and "more likely than all the other topics combined". Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cost of going to the wrong category is higher than going to a dab category per event. If there is a primary topic, then the total cost of a dab (through people wanting the primary having to click through) is higher than the total cost of no dab (through people wanting the other meanings having to click through).
There are also substantial one-off maintenance costs if the proposed move were to occur - not limited to fixing dozens of incoming links that would need adjusting, hundreds of sub-categories and re-categorising thousands of files. The cost of these maintenance tasks mean that there should be a substantial benefit from making the change, to justify the time and labour that would be needed to implement the move.
Show me evidence that there is a substantial cost to not moving, and then there is a case. The risk of occasionally having a file for the wrong Plymouth in the cat, and the minimal time spent fixing those rare events, are not substantial risks - indeed are near-zero.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point as you have pointed out is that the rename has mainly one-off maintenance costs while keeping it has ongoing costs. As I pointed out I have no strong opinion either way mainly from your NOTBROKEN comments (that there is no substantial short term benefits) but I do on the other hand think that it fails PRIMARYTOPIC so I am still neutral. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are significant one-off costs to a move and very low (but not zero) ongoing maintenance costs to no move. That means no move, unless a substantial benefit to readers can be demonstrated.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Question What should be done with media like File:En-uk-Plymouth.ogg? That relates to the word Plymouth, not specifically the English city - and is equally valid as, for instance, a pronunciation of the car brand. Maybe, putting it into all Plymouth cats would be best approach?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a local thing then as this could apply to any word (see the history of the File:En-us-Mercury.ogg page), given that it states "Pronunciation of "Plymouth" in British English (Received Pronunciation/South East England)" it indicates that it should go in Devon specifically but could go in others. I'd note that File:En-uk-York.ogg was removed from Category:York. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, Commons is a different project to WP. If the WP article is moved, that fact is worth noting here. But this discussion could be closed at any time, before or after the discussion on WP. To be honest, Commons should use "no consensus" for obviously stale discussions when there is no prospect of a clear outcome. That's better than leaving them open indefinitely.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that ENWP is not determinate, but as established the threshold is higher for PT than WP, however most of the other major languages have the English one as primary so maybe that would be enough to stop that, but I think that if the WP article is moved, that would be enough to justify that here, to be quite honest the fact that the CAT at WP is DABBed I think would be enough to have it as a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons is not Wikipedia. If the WP article is moved, that fact should be borne in consideration here. No more, no less. This CFD should be closed on its own merits.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are commenting on the WP move discussion, and WP move processes, something you would not be allowed to on WP. All that matters here is Commons is not Wikipedia.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was about primary topic discussions in general, on any project. I would expect that the Cleveland discussion will be closed as no move as there appears to be clear consensus against it while I would expect this will be closed as move as there appears to be stronger arguments in support. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6, ScottDavis, Crouch, Swale, and Nilfanion: :
Stale discussion: The consensus appears to indicate we should Rename Category:Plymouth to Category:Plymouth, Devon . Should we move forward with that change, is there further discussion required, or should we just close this as unresolved? Josh (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing that rename is my preference. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there seems to be a weak consensus for this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/09/Category:Plymouth&oldid=844480471"